Not to be "that guy" but I'm gonna be "that guy" bows do have speed, limb speed on a bow is a real thing! bow material and design, including the angle of the limbs affect limb speed. Limb speed and how efficiently the energy is transferred from the bow, down the string and into the arrow and arrow design have a direct impact on how fast that arrow flies. Potential energy stored in the limbs to kinetic energy pushing the arrow out. Great video!
@ryan- How thick is a bison skin over the boiler room, ie kill zone? I'm trying to take an asian water buffalo, their skin is upto 2in thick. I'm hoping that bison skin is similar so can apply your data.
2" thick is the thickss skin there is on a big bovid, BUT.....that is TOUGH skin, even if it's thinner than 2". Bison hair (and all the dust/mud it traps) will eat sharp arrowhead edges, whether steel or stone. Then all the meat, tendon, cartilage, and ribs. Buffalo ribs almost overlap..
This guy is not on the same page as you in hunting but he makes an pretty good argument about time to target. Basically you need bullet speeds out of a bow to beat the deer if they are stressed and going to move. Of course all bets are off if it doesn't move, but his point is, when they do go fast, they will beat any bow at any bow speed. He has an annoying laugh at his own jokes but I'd love to hear your take on his argument. ua-cam.com/video/aiHl8b7g-B0/v-deo.html&pp=ygUed2h5IGFycm93IHNwZWVkIGRvZXNuJ3QgbWF0dGVy
For sure no arrow can beat an aware deer that is spooky. Luckily since us primitive hunters typically shoot closer distances with relatively quiet bows, we can get away with a slower speed. But, an extra 10-20 fps on a faster arrow that still has plenty of killing power really helps in being there a little earlier. Sometimes it's just a 1 or 2 inch difference between a kill shot and a wounding shot. The deer will likely be moving when the arrow arrives but a really slow arrow just gives em even more time to have moved further off the arrow's trajectory.
With all due respect, but your logic is flawed here, I believe. Let's examine the example you chose, 180 vs 160 fps. At 0.2 seconds the faster arrow will get to 12 yards, while the slower one will reach 10.7, so you basically "bought" yourself 4 feet of extra distance. Then, you said that as long as you get to the required energy, all arrows will penetrate similarly. That's not the case. Slower arrows penetrate better, because they experience *significantly* less drag as they pass through the animal. Hydrodynamic drag grows with the *square* of the velocity. The drag at 180 fps is 25% higher than that at 160. Add in extra momentum and sectional density of the slower arrow and it will consistently outpenetrate the faster one. There are additional factors a play here too. Especially for primitive bows, you get much more energy as you go up with the weight of the projectile. All this additional energy is no longer wasted for noise and handshock. So the bow will be literally more efficient, quieter and more pleasant to shoot, if you opt to go heavier. I'm *not* saying that you should do that. I'm not a primitive hunter, I don't understand all the other factors which may significantly outweight all the benefits of heavier projectiles. However, you did not explain those benefits accurately.
I have to agree with almost everything you said. I'm a big proponent of high arrow mass and momentum producing penetration. Except I don't understand where you got the idea that a slower arrow will penetrate more. That would only be true if the mass of the faster arrow was lowered. Yes, the resistance increases, but so would the k. energy and momentum, which more than off-set the resistance. I would definitely trust a slower, heavier arrow over a faster, lighter one, but making that heavy arrow a little faster doesn't hurt it. Making it faster by shedding mass DOES hurt it. The compound shooters squabble a lot about 280 fps being too slow, but 325 comes at a loss of momentum, increased resistance, and loss of durability. I disagree with Ryan niw and then. but I listen to him about everything. I know him from clear back 30 years ago on the Leatherwall forum. He doesn't say anything thoughtlessly or baselessly. For instance, i'm always using steel points, So when I hear him talk I take that into account.
@@stephenballard3759 Yes, obviously that's what I meant. I try to be concise, because YT hates "essays". I should have made it clearer. Anyway, in case of primitive hunting, slower arrow would likely need to be simply longer. I've seen Ryan testing such a setup on hogs. He shot right through one of them. From memory, he argued that while the penetration was great, it wasn't worth it, that he needed all the extra speed, because the hogs were ducking often. I disagree with that. Time to distance is time to distance. A faster arrow will gain you 1-2 yards of distance. If that's a worthy trade off, he's correct and I'm wrong.
Best primitive channel on UA-cam thanks for your knowledge
Ryan...you da MAN...da CAVE-MAN...😜! Such good information, sir!
Thanks for posting nice watch for after the gym
Not to be "that guy" but I'm gonna be "that guy" bows do have speed, limb speed on a bow is a real thing! bow material and design, including the angle of the limbs affect limb speed. Limb speed and how efficiently the energy is transferred from the bow, down the string and into the arrow and arrow design have a direct impact on how fast that arrow flies. Potential energy stored in the limbs to kinetic energy pushing the arrow out.
Great video!
Thank you once again
Great video man
@ryan- How thick is a bison skin over the boiler room, ie kill zone? I'm trying to take an asian water buffalo, their skin is upto 2in thick. I'm hoping that bison skin is similar so can apply your data.
2" thick is the thickss skin there is on a big bovid, BUT.....that is TOUGH skin, even if it's thinner than 2". Bison hair (and all the dust/mud it traps) will eat sharp arrowhead edges, whether steel or stone. Then all the meat, tendon, cartilage, and ribs. Buffalo ribs almost overlap..
So what is faster, they bow or the arrow? JK keep up the good work Ryan
The hunters from Papua NewGuinea, who also hunt boars and deer with 2500-4000 grain arrows would like a word with you.
Thanks Ryan.
That information and hunt is included in the book also.
Footpounds ???
Stop it !
Use joules !
Now !
Slugs
Those units are just silly.
Use gramm and meter.
Pounds, grains, slugs. Such bizarre units.
Good morning from Syracuse NY brother
Thanks for the knowledge
This guy is not on the same page as you in hunting but he makes an pretty good argument about time to target.
Basically you need bullet speeds out of a bow to beat the deer if they are stressed and going to move.
Of course all bets are off if it doesn't move, but his point is, when they do go fast, they will beat any bow at any bow speed.
He has an annoying laugh at his own jokes but I'd love to hear your take on his argument.
ua-cam.com/video/aiHl8b7g-B0/v-deo.html&pp=ygUed2h5IGFycm93IHNwZWVkIGRvZXNuJ3QgbWF0dGVy
For sure no arrow can beat an aware deer that is spooky. Luckily since us primitive hunters typically shoot closer distances with relatively quiet bows, we can get away with a slower speed. But, an extra 10-20 fps on a faster arrow that still has plenty of killing power really helps in being there a little earlier. Sometimes it's just a 1 or 2 inch difference between a kill shot and a wounding shot. The deer will likely be moving when the arrow arrives but a really slow arrow just gives em even more time to have moved further off the arrow's trajectory.
Put a video up with a chronograph that would make a great 👌 watch.
With all due respect, but your logic is flawed here, I believe. Let's examine the example you chose, 180 vs 160 fps. At 0.2 seconds the faster arrow will get to 12 yards, while the slower one will reach 10.7, so you basically "bought" yourself 4 feet of extra distance.
Then, you said that as long as you get to the required energy, all arrows will penetrate similarly. That's not the case. Slower arrows penetrate better, because they experience *significantly* less drag as they pass through the animal. Hydrodynamic drag grows with the *square* of the velocity. The drag at 180 fps is 25% higher than that at 160. Add in extra momentum and sectional density of the slower arrow and it will consistently outpenetrate the faster one.
There are additional factors a play here too. Especially for primitive bows, you get much more energy as you go up with the weight of the projectile. All this additional energy is no longer wasted for noise and handshock. So the bow will be literally more efficient, quieter and more pleasant to shoot, if you opt to go heavier.
I'm *not* saying that you should do that. I'm not a primitive hunter, I don't understand all the other factors which may significantly outweight all the benefits of heavier projectiles.
However, you did not explain those benefits accurately.
I have to agree with almost everything you said. I'm a big proponent of high arrow mass and momentum producing penetration.
Except I don't understand where you got the idea that a slower arrow will penetrate more. That would only be true if the mass of the faster arrow was lowered. Yes, the resistance increases, but so would the k. energy and momentum, which more than off-set the resistance.
I would definitely trust a slower, heavier arrow over a faster, lighter one, but making that heavy arrow a little faster doesn't hurt it. Making it faster by shedding mass DOES hurt it. The compound shooters squabble a lot about 280 fps being too slow, but 325 comes at a loss of momentum, increased resistance, and loss of durability.
I disagree with Ryan niw and then. but I listen to him about everything. I know him from clear back 30 years ago on the
Leatherwall forum. He doesn't say anything thoughtlessly or baselessly. For instance, i'm always using steel points, So when I hear him talk I take that into account.
@@stephenballard3759 Yes, obviously that's what I meant. I try to be concise, because YT hates "essays". I should have made it clearer.
Anyway, in case of primitive hunting, slower arrow would likely need to be simply longer. I've seen Ryan testing such a setup on hogs. He shot right through one of them.
From memory, he argued that while the penetration was great, it wasn't worth it, that he needed all the extra speed, because the hogs were ducking often.
I disagree with that. Time to distance is time to distance. A faster arrow will gain you 1-2 yards of distance. If that's a worthy trade off, he's correct and I'm wrong.