A standard test of penetration?

[nightowl1]

So there is always talk about "is this bow enough weight for..." Or "will this arrow be good for..." I was shooting some broad heads with a new bow today so I stacked up some pieces of cardboard to shoot at. It got me thinking. What if we could set up a standard of penetration based on amount of equally spaced cardboard?

Yes I understand shooting cardboard isn't the same as shooting at live animals. That's a given. What I'm saying is  Your setup can't make it through a single pizza box (pretty simple way to get equally spaced cardboard) then you probably shouldn't hunt deer with it. If it can make it through 3 pizza boxes at a specific yardage then your ok at that distance for deer.

I know it's not iron clad but it seems reasonable. Anyone willing to test it out? Take your favorite hunting bow and see how much card board you can go through before your fletching gets stuck in the last box.

Anyone ever played around with this idea?

[Wheels2]

You can research the net for a formula for ballistic gelatin.  Fill gallon jugs with it, stack them one in front of another and have at it.  If you have access to a hide or leather for the face of the first jug, even better.
Sadly too many variables on animals to make an exact standard test, but the gelatin jugs will allow you to test out different rigs that you have or even your set up against you buddy's.

[nightowl1]

I think the cardboard would be cheaper and easier to get similar results from different people.

This isn't a way of telling people what to shoot or whose setup is better. I'm not saying that "if you can make it through two pizza boxes you will blow through any animal ( even if there is a point that becomes true)". I'm saying if you can't get through x amounts of cardboard it's safe to say you probably shouldn't hunt with that bow or arrow configuration. Just a standard entry test anyone can try at home with minimal skill.

[overbo]

Phonebook was used for years but I'm sure that's out dated too!

[59Alaskan]

Lots of variables with pizza boxes.  I won't even begin to get into the grade of cardboard discussion.  I will leave it to the amount of grease in the bottom.  If you eat a meat lovers from Greasy Grady's your box may be easier to punch through than a box that had veggie delight on thin crust in it.

Just sayin'

Actually, I think it would be a blast to punch some holes in pizza boxes, and not a bad way to build confidence in your set up!  Plus it makes folding up those pizza boxes to go into the trash alot easier.

[killinstuff]

I like testing penetration on animals.  Anything less then a hole in and hole out is poor penetration.

[wingnut]

"I like testing penetration on animals. Anything less then a hole in and hole out is poor penetration."

This is where you need to listen to the people that have been there done that.  Also Ashby's report is very through.

Too me pizza box testing just doesn't do it.

Mike

[ChuckC]

Problem with testing on anything other than the real thing, is you may not be testing the same parameters that matter in the real thing.  Fact it. .  more than likely, you aren't.

So, if you want to go hunting pizza boxes, or ballistic gel, or plywood, or concrete blocks, they make perfect studies, but for deer. . maybe not.
ChuckC

[basket-rack'89]

I'm a little surprised that there are no takers for a standardized penetration test.  I can see the benefits of testing your setup and comparing it to results of proven setups.  All of the penetration issues would come into play, arrow mass, speed, FOC, broad head design, skinny shafts, etc, and you would have a way of actually comparing your setup to others that have worked on the same game species.  It might also be a good way to find out if you have your arrows perfectly tuned (Are you getting expected penetration for your setup). Seems like a good way to expand Ashby's results.

I understand that there is no substitute for real world experience, but this could be a good way for some people to gain confidence in their setup, or come to the realization that they should not be using it for their intended quarry.  

Now standardizing the test would be difficult, and I agree that pizza boxes may not be the best testing medium, however I see the point of using something cheap and easy to obtain that is consistent across the US. It would also be impossible to mimic the real thing, and as many of us have experienced, it is almost impossible to mimic a shot even on the real thing (Did you hit a rib, angle of shot,  etc). Even with proper shot placement, funny things happen with penetration. You will likely not be able to replicate a real world shot without actually doing it, but over time we would be able to provide examples like "I was able to shoot through 15 pizza boxes with my setup and I had a complete pass through, cutting ribs on both sides."

As with any test, there will be some setups that do better on the test, but worse on game (potentially needle point broad heads) but
when there are inconsistencies, they will be discussed and analyzed.

I think there is merit to a standardized penetration test, although I agree that without real world experience validating it, it does not do much good.    

[old_goat2]

There is just no suitable medium in my opinion!  Attributes that may add to penetration in a critter could impede it in a dry medium. We have all seen it with 3d targets etc. A rig that shouldn't out penetrate another rig does. Just go with what should work and it probably will! Like long length to width broadheads for instance!

[Archie]

Small, empty USPS flat-rate shipping boxes.

Plastic gallon milk jugs filled with water, stacked in a row. (Then again, this one might not work so good!)

Those two would be consistent and easily accessible to all here in the US. That would give us a way to compare amongst ourselves.

[nineworlds9]

Flesh is mostly water so the water jug idea may have promise in comparison to dry media?  How bout water with 35% instant oatmeal added for thickening?

[screamin]

I use fresh cow shoulder blades that I pick up from the local butcher for a buck a piece. I think that is about as real world, although worse case scenario, as you can get.

[wtpops]

The actual medium would not mater as long as the results are in relation to real world results in the field on pray. 12" of penetration on this test medium gives you a pass through 90% of the time on this game animal when hit broad side (no shoulders involved) and so on.

[Bowwild]

I think this test would be fine if simply comparing one set-up against another.

My main practice butts are field logic layered foam. The stuff is quite consistent and I shoot unshot sections with different arrows, such as Axis Trads and FMJ Injexions, the Injexion always penetrates a bit further (2" or so -- about 15%).

Since I know from real world hunting results that the Axis Trad arrow will produce two holes in whitetail deer, I also know the FMJ will.

I realize this type of analysis has limited application. The first being if I'm wanting to hunt a different beast (moose) than I've hunted before, I have no comparison. Although, I can identify the best penetrating set-up from those I want to test this way.

Then I'm left with advice based on the experience of others. Of course that is also highly limited because of countless variables.

[Archie]

I'm sure the intent of the original post is to suggest a way to compare among ourselves, not to measure actual potential penetration on a deer, kudu, or water buffalo, etc.  

I think it's an interesting idea.

[Fletcher]

It's an interesting idea, Nightowl, and one that could really prove useful.  Cardboard is pretty tough and fairly consistent.  I'd think starting with about 12" and working thinner from there until you find the thickness that gives the penetration you think would be appropriate might just work.

[BOWMARKS]

Originally posted by Archie:
I'm sure the intent of the original post is to suggest a way to compare among ourselves, not to measure actual potential penetration on a deer, kudu, or water buffalo, etc.  

I think it's an interesting idea.

X3  

[nightowl1]

Exactly. Like WTpops said The medium doesn't matter. I'm not tryin to replicate flesh but find something that can be consistent, cheap and accessible. A hypothetic example Would be... If you can make the broadhead through 6" of cardboard then that is the same amount of penetration as most other bows that consistently make pass throughs on deer.

I do not have enough experience on large game animals to be able to set this up myself. I've only killed a few hogs and a bucket load of small game.

That's why I was hoping we could put our heads together and decide on a medium and then start working on it. It will take a large amount of data to come to any conclusion.  I think cardboard would be the easiest. Let's decide on a medium and then anyone interested can play with it and post results.

[Phil Magistro]

I agree that shooting into cardboard does not indicate how much penetration you will get on live game but it will give a consistent comparison of different arrow combinations that is useful.  An arrow that penetrates deeper into compressed cardboard is most likely to penetrate deeper in game.

It also give a chance to compare some variables such as shaft diameter, total weight, FOC between different arrows that is nearly impossible for most of us to compare on live animals.