Arrow FOC

[ImBillT]

They do, but not simply because the heads are heavy. Improperly spined arrows, poor arrow flight and thin-walled arrows (because FOC MUST BE 20%...) are all causes.

Improperly spined arrows aren’t a fault of point weight. They’re entirely the fault of someone who can’t tune. Poor arrow flight is again bad tuning.

Thin walled arrows? Sure. If the means by which you increase your FOC is to use a thinner walled arrow shaft, then you’re probably(depending upon materials and design) giving up shaft durability. BUT, that thin walled shaft is LESS LIKELY to break on impact if it is behind a heavy point than if it is behind a light point.

 

[ImBillT]

What’s that mean? Lol it was commercial grade core bond I had the insulators at work fill for me in a box. Stops a broadhead almost instantly, field points make it a little further. These are with broadheads and you can see it was easily 6-8” deeper when I added an additional 50 gn to the front, W/O adjusting anything else.

I have a different possible explanation.

Commercial targets are usually made of a softer foam that returns to its original shape. During impact the foam or the animal push away from the broad head. Imagine a snow plow pushing snow at high speed. The snow is thrown clear and the side of the snow plow does not drag against snow. The same thing occurs with meat or foam as the broad head passes through the target. A portion of the shaft behind the broad head is untouched by the animal or the soft foam target while the broad head moves through it. The animal’s tissue or the target do return to their original position and begin to drag along the shaft. The higher the impact velocity, the more of the shaft can pass through this air filled cavity with out friction against the animal or foam, and thus increasing velocity can increase penetration even when momentum decreased. TARGET MATERIAL MATTERS IN THIS EFFECT. A more rigid insulation foam will not demonstrate this effect the same way that a soft commercial target foam, or a memory foam pillow would. Shooting an animal would have a different effect as well. The animal’s wet tissues are much more slippery than target foam, so their friction against the arrow shaft would contribute less to this effect than commercial target foam. This effect is almost completely absent with rifle projectiles because there is no shaft behind them to experience drag when the tissue or gelatin collapse behind the moving projectile.

With bullets, increasing velocity at the expense of momentum by using identical construction but different weight bullets will always reduce penetration. With arrows, you might see an increase in penetration of commercial foam targets, but I would bet that you see a decrease in penetration on animals whenever you sacrifice momentum for velocity.

Whatever the case, foam targets are a poor test medium for arrow penetration.

 

[Rack Daniels]

I have a different possible explanation.

Commercial targets are usually made of a softer foam that returns to its original shape. During impact the foam or the animal push away from the broad head. Imagine a snow plow pushing snow at high speed. The snow is thrown clear and the side of the snow plow does not drag against snow. The same thing occurs with meat or foam as the broad head passes through the target. A portion of the shaft behind the broad head is untouched by the animal or the soft foam target while the broad head moves through it. The animal’s tissue or the target do return to their original position and begin to drag along the shaft. The higher the impact velocity, the more of the shaft can pass through this air filled cavity with out friction against the animal or foam, and thus increasing velocity can increase penetration even when momentum decreased. TARGET MATERIAL MATTERS IN THIS EFFECT. A more rigid insulation foam will not demonstrate this effect the same way that a soft commercial target foam, or a memory foam pillow would. Shooting an animal would have a different effect as well. The animal’s wet tissues are much more slippery than target foam, so their friction against the arrow shaft would contribute less to this effect than commercial target foam. This effect is almost completely absent with rifle projectiles because there is no shaft behind them to experience drag when the tissue or gelatin collapse behind the moving projectile.

With bullets, increasing velocity at the expense of momentum by using identical construction but different weight bullets will always reduce penetration. With arrows, you might see an increase in penetration of commercial foam targets, but I would bet that you see a decrease in penetration on animals whenever you sacrifice momentum for velocity.

Whatever the case, foam targets are a poor test medium for arrow penetration.

It surely shows it went deeper. Every time. It penetrates farther. Period. Nobody needs math to see that clearly it’s smacking harder. I don’t nerd out on the stuff. It works for me!

 

[tjones]

I’m going to address this again because I think I can do a better job after thinking on it a bit.

Adjusting the fletching. I think you’ve missed the issue I was addressing. Typically those advocating high FOC arrows point out that you can shoot with less fletching. In calm wind this is true. Moving the center of mass forward increases the length of the lever to the pivot point that the fletching can act on, and decreases the length of the lever that the broad head can act on. This means that smaller fletching can control the broad head. You said that decreasing that decreasing the fletching would result in less broad head control. Technically that’s true, but increasing FOC reduces the amount of fletching required to get equal broadhead control. BUT I’m starting to think that the high FOC guys have something askew as well. Whenever someone complains of the arrow’s flight in wind, I’ve heard them suggest reducing the size of the fletching, and explain why you don’t need as much fletching. That’s all fine and good for calm conditions. The issue is that not every complaint I’ve heard or read regarding shooting high FOC arrows in the wind is simply a complaint about how far the arrow drifted. I remember one specifically on Kifaru cast, and have probably heard some elsewhere, that was referring to the knock end of the arrow not following the point end of the arrow. Basically poor arrow flight. The problem is, the arrow was properly tuned and shot perfectly in calm conditions. The fletching steers the arrow because of the pressure from the air moving past it as the arrow flies FORWARD. When wind pushes a balanced arrow, the arrow remains properly oriented tip to tail as it drifts in the windward direction. When wind pushes a high FOC arrow, the tail is often pushed more than the point, and thus you have poor arrow flight. I THINK there is a solution. I THINK the Ashby guys may have this backward. You need more steering from the fletching in the direction the arrow is traveling. The answer is MORE FLETCHING. If the forward velocity of the arrow, and the velocity of the crosswind were equal, then the fletching could not correct the alignment of the arrow’s shaft to its flight path, but unless you’re shooting a long bow in a hurricane, we don’t have that problem. The air flowing over the fletching from the forward velocity of the arrow can apply more force to the fletching than the air pressing on the side of the fletching due to the crosswind. You just need enough fletching there.

My opinion is that high FOC arrows probably need more fletching than low FOC arrows to correct arrow flight in high crosswinds. NOT TO STEER THE BROAD HEAD. They need less fletching to steer the broad head.

To your last point, getting the entire arrow shaft to fly in line with the broad head contributes more to penetration than a high FOC. That’s probably why Ashby’s experiments demonstrated that, and probably why he lists arrow flight ahead of FOC.

Didn't you JUST start shooting a bow?

 

[Rack Daniels]

Didn't you JUST start shooting a bow?

It’s been 4 years.. lol it’s my 3rd bow and probably 4th set of different arrow tinkering. it’s not like I just Started.. thank man sorry I even commented. You’re a troll anyway Jones— you never have anything to say if not talking jive dude

 

[tjones]

It’s been 4 years.. lol it’s my 3rd bow and probably 4th set of different arrow tinkering. it’s not like I just Started.. thank man sorry I even commented. You’re a troll anyway Jones— you never have anything to say if not talking jive dude

Well buddy, as you can see above (maybe not) this wasnt your post quoted.

Don't you have someone you should be fighting right now?

 

[Redman]

In what way(s) will a higher FOC arrow outperform a lower FOC arrow of equal weight?

The more weight you have up front entering your target lessens the possibility of arrow deflection. I hate to use the word pull but the less weight you have behind your point, especially at angled shots, the better penetration you will have. A more balanced arrow will have a lot more weight to contend with the length of the shaft. People will say see heavy weight up front will cause shaft failure close to the insert. Which can be a problem if you just screw a heavy head on a standard insert. Valkyrie archery has pretty much taken care of this problem with their system but most people don't want to pay that kind of money. Black Eagle has a great system that I use that is much cheaper there are others out there. Any way I have tested traditional "Heavy" arrows and high FOC arrows of the same weight and have seen the benefits of the high FOC arrow first hand vs the standard heavy traditional set up.

 

[ImBillT]

It surely shows it went deeper. Every time. It penetrates farther. Period. Nobody needs math to see that clearly it’s smacking harder. I don’t nerd out on the stuff. It works for me!

I’m sorry but to my knowledge giving up momentum to gain velocity has never been known to result in deeper penetration on animals. I’m only aware of it occurring in commercial foam targets.

 

[ImBillT]

Didn't you JUST start shooting a bow?

Been shooting a bow casually for ten years. Have built a handful of board bows. Have shot compounds, board bows, a recurve and a long bow. Just started hunting with a bow when we got an archery season this year.

Stopped at 4/5 of a mechanical engineering in 2011.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

I’m sorry but to my knowledge giving up momentum to gain velocity has never been known to result in deeper penetration on animals. I’m only aware of it occurring in commercial foam targets.

His 50 gr heavier arrow (which would necessarily be slower with higher momentum) is the one that penetrated deeper.

 

[TheTone]

Some amazing archery experience here giving out advice and opinions

 

[ImBillT]

His 50 gr heavier arrow (which would necessarily be slower with higher momentum) is the one that penetrated deeper.

Oh. Well then that makes perfect sense.

I’ve still heard some people claim the opposite on targets. Never seen it personally. Never encountered it as a widespread belief on animals. S attempted to offer a POSSIBLE explanation of why it MIGHT happen on foam targets.

 

[ImBillT]

Some amazing archery experience here giving out advice and opinions

And being proven wrong?

I personally have not offered any advice in this thread that I’m aware of.

Very few people on earth have the archery experience of Ed Ashby, and all I have done is explain that his findings on FOC do not violate the laws of physics. No archery experience is needed for that.

The only direct disadvantage I can find with increasing FOC(assuming you have the proper components to do so while tuning properly and maintaining structural integrity) is arrow flight in high crosswinds. I thought I may have reasoned ny way to a solution, but I have changed my mind. I’m not sure if it’s possible to fix.

 

[Rack Daniels]

I’m sorry but to my knowledge giving up momentum to gain velocity has never been known to result in deeper penetration on animals. I’m only aware of it occurring in commercial foam targets.

I said it wasn’t a commercial target already partner, and was new when I tested it, no soft spots. No bs. There’s no doubt in my mind it is carrying through farther. Thanks man. Have a good night buddy


On many threads if I comment I feel I’m targeted for being inaccurate. I may be wrong and I appreciate your expertise. Seriously. But I will not be discredited or made fun of for my inexperience when I simply input my first hand experiences. I’ve shot multiple animals before the inserts and after. It represents similar to that of the new target that was homemade with higher quality material and not just store bought junk.

Which is another arguement in itself right? If a new target stops arrow A here. And arrow B goes 35% further thru, how is that gonna be translated to a target that’s not DESIGNED to stop it?

 

[ImBillT]

I said it wasn’t a commercial target already partner, and was new when I tested it, no soft spots. No bs. There’s no doubt in my mind it is carrying through farther. Thanks man. Have a good night buddy


On many threads if I comment I feel I’m targeted for being inaccurate. I may be wrong and I appreciate your expertise. Seriously. But I will not be discredited or made fun of for my inexperience when I simply input my first hand experiences. I’ve shot multiple animals before the inserts and after. It represents similar to that of the new target that was homemade with higher quality material and not just store bought junk.

Which is another arguement in itself right? If a new target stops arrow A here. And arrow B goes 35% further thru, how is that gonna be translated to a target that’s not DESIGNED to stop it?

Ought Six said that foam targets showed better penetration when speed was increased at the expense of momentum.

You showed the opposite with your spray foam target.

golfer said you hit a soft spot.

I’ve heard this about commercial foam targets before and offered a possible explanation for the reason that might happen in commercial foam targets as well as a possible reason that it didn’t occur in your target. It was a guess at a possible explanation.

I never mentioned your experience or bashed your statement.

 

[golfer]

To clarify my comment of it must be a soft spot was purely sarcasm and meant no low blows to @FoodIsMemories. And as far as the rest of the Ashby stuff wasn’t most of or all his testing done with traditional tackle in mind? Not compounds.

 

[Rack Daniels]

I feel like someone else was saying that your target showed greater penetration with the heavier arrow because it hit a soft spot, while claiming that the opposite occurs on commercial targets. I was offering a potential alternative to the soft spot theory of someone else’s.

Yeah there’s a lot of someone’s on here that just like to fight with anything old FIM says… I really do like reading all the math involved and your skill set being applied!

Like I said. It was an observation with no math or science involved. Take it how you will, ya know?

But if I don’t have an equation to back it then I’m a rookie and dunno a thing anyway. Sorry man.

 

[ImBillT]

Yeah there’s a lot of someone’s on here that just like to fight with anything old FIM says… I really do like reading all the math involved and your skill set being applied!

Like I said. It was an observation with no math or science involved. Take it how you will, ya know?

But if I don’t have an equation to back it then I’m a rookie and dunno a thing anyway. Sorry man.

I edited my above post. You should read it again now that I’ve done so.

 

[Rack Daniels]

Golfer and tjones have constantly pestered me and are close followers of their cyber bully peers.


And wonder why I get fighting mad. SMH…

I really try to be cool and just share my experiences…… sorry @Ought Six i like your content bro I won’t go off the wall on this one. I’m more disappointed then mad lol

 

[Rack Daniels]

@ImBillT you’ve got a wildly wrinkled brain and I’m intensely intrigued. It’s hard to decipher the bread from the bologna; the shit from the shinola here… I hope I didn’t offend you personally. I look forward to learning from all of ya!!