ARROW PENETRATION TEST!!! (Joel Maxfield Arrow Study) 

Greetings to you all and thank you for your comments! Of all of the topics I personally have put forward on a podcast in the last several years, I have received by far more emails on this topic than all others combined. It seems the views in the emails can be lumped into three camps: 1) The data prove that light arrows penetrate as well as heavy arrows regardless of target. 2) The data prove that penetration depth only depends on kinetic energy regardless of target. 3) While the penetration depths into foam aren't the same as in an animal, the depths can be scaled to indicate what the performance on animals will be. In fact, none of these statements is universally true regardless of how much intuitive sense they may seem to make. Unfortunately, this is a case where common logic breaks down, and we have to rely on science to shed light on what is happening. Normally, I shy away from presenting higher math (calculus, differential equations, etc.) on a hunting channel, because it can be distracting and can come across as an ego trip. However, based on the number of emails I have received on this topic, and for completeness, I feel that we should peel back the covers and take a look at the underlying science. In that vein, I defer to Dr. Jared Spencer's presentation on penetration mechanics of arrows into various media which he has posted at: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-N1bO0oWkDXQ.html My suggestion for viewing his lecture...grab a pizza and a beer or two, sit back and LISTEN to what he is saying, even if you don't follow the math he is performing. Then, even if you don't get anything he says, you still had pizza and beer! :) Humor aside, there is a wealth of knowledge being presented here, and if nothing more, Dr. Spencer should be congratulated for putting it out there for us all (including me) to learn from. And finally, one last time, at the risk of beating a dead horse I'm going to say it again. You cannot assume anything about the behavior of arrows penetrating animals based on the results of shooting arrows into foam. Or gel. For those of you that just like to hunt, and don't care about all this sciencey stuff - I get you, you didn't come here to this channel for this kind of content. I sincerely apologize in advance to you - go forth and enjoy the hunt. Maybe though, during a lull, glance at your bow, and your arrows, maybe your broadheads, or laser range finder, and consider what underlying engineering sciences have contributed to your enjoyment of this fabulous sport. Best regards, Darrel

I wouldn't care if it was 3 times longer. Every time I hear Rocket man speak I learn something.

All the time and effort that goes into these studies, or like them, pays off big for us as hunters or even recreational shooters. Thank you for sharing this information. Love what you're doing ❤️

A lot of good data in this video. As an engineer myself, here is my two cents. The amount of penetration is directly proportional to the Kinetic Energy (KE). Yes, it is easily proven using a homogeneous target such as foam, but this is ALSO true for other materials. So, the amount of penetration you get on an animal has everything to do with the KE of your projectile, ASSUMING that projectile does not deviate from its intended path of travel. Comparing two arrows, one light with a greater velocity and one heavy with less velocity, assuming the same KE at impact, will yield the EXACT same penetration no matter the target material, but again, ASSUMING the arrows do NOT deviate from their intended path of travel. Now, this is where arrow setup, weight, and Forward of Center (FoC) all help contribute to greater penetration on an animal. An easy way to look at this is looking at the extremes. Think of it this way, if you made a 4 ft. projectile using PVC pipe, put a 40 lbs dumbbell on the front and a 5 lb dumbbell on the rear. Have someone throw this at you at a set velocity. Try slapping the front of the projectile out of the air to deviate it from its initial path, this will be difficult. Next, repeat the same thing with a lower FoC projectile, put a 25 lbs dumbbell on the front and a 20 lb on the rear. It requires less force to deviate the front of the lower FoC projectile from its intended path. But remember, both have the exact same amount of KE and would penetrate the SAME depth into a target, assuming they stay on their intended path. When you shoot an animal with an arrow, it has many different materials it could hit. The worst of course would be a bone. So, for this example, lets assume we are shooting the exact same deer, in the exact same spot, with two different arrow setups. If we shoot the animal and it hits a rib with a higher velocity/lower weight arrow, it will deviate from its intended path more than a lower velocity/higher weight arrow. Again, both arrows have the exact same KE, but the lighter arrow if much more likely to deflect and miss the target area. As the lighter arrow deflects, even if its just a fraction of an inch more than the heavier arrow, it will lose energy in an unintended direction, which will reduce its overall penetration. This is where two arrows with the same amount of KE will penetrate differently, since the lighter arrow will have a greater lose of energy from an increase in deflection. This is where the heavier, slower arrow has its advantage. You do not see this in the target test, as they are shooting an arrow into a homogeneous material and looses in unintended directions will be so minimal, they will not show up in the data. In conclusion, there are a lot of factors that go into the proper arrow setup for hunting. Adding more weight up front will likely be more forgiving to human error, be easier to tune, and deviate less from its intended target. There are two ways to add weight to the front of the arrow, either add additional weight to the front of the arrow, or move weight from the shaft to the front. Of course, the later would keep your velocity constant and would be more desirable. But taking too much weight out of the shaft results in the arrow flexing too much during flight, which could reduce its penetration as energy will be lost in an undesirable direction. On the flip side, adding additional weight to the front of the arrow will reduce its velocity and increase the chance an animal has to react/move before the arrow penetrates the animal. These all have pros/cons, and the tradeoffs need to be looked at closely based on your hunting setup. I feel the majority of hunters will benefit from increasing their FoC by adding additional weight to the front of their arrow. As Range Fairy has shown, this is one of the quickest and easiest ways to get your arrows to fly better. Now, this does not mean more weight the better. You need to find the correct balance between velocity, arrow flight, and deviation when it hits an animal. This argument will be around forever, as there is not one correct answer.

Good for you guys. Finally someone with a platform to speak actually says the obvious and doesn't allow their personal preferences to bias the facts. I have been saying for at least 10 years now on several forums that targets are targets for a reason....to stop an arrow. If you want to see which arrow build penetrates a phone book the best, you don't go out and shoot rabbits or deer or water buffalos. You shoot phone books. If a bowhunter is really interested in which arrow build penetrates an animals flesh and bones the best, you don't shoot targets designed to stop arrows, you don't shoot ballistic gel nor phone books.....you shoot animals. The fresher the better. Ashby has the goods on this. And he got the goods in an extremely exhaustive and unbiased fashion. The backyard testers who don't happen to "prefer" the results of said Ashby goods is exactly why they became back yard testers. They shoot their Mckenzie or foam targets and even though they see zero results they still correlate the zero results to predictive animal penetration. Still as ridiculous today as it was 10 years ago. In the early 1990s, as a biologist and bowhunting guide at Willow Point Island, we trailed wounded deer every day and night. The large majority of hits had poor penetration. Lots of deer we would not have found if not for incredible labradors. The common denominator in such consistently poor penetration was fast compound bows and light arrows. That is when I learned first hand, without a doubt and with a great data set, what is not the best arrow build for killing and recovering game. I personally was shooting a 73# recurve and heavier arrows getting excellent penetration. Now I shoot 71#s and a bone proof 875-900 grain arrow build. Bones or not, that arrow blows up everything it hits. When looking at both ends of a spectrum where a 100 grain arrow is on one end and 1000 grainer is the other end. Where do most hunting arrows land, the light end or the heavy end of the spectrum? The penetration spectrum is exactly the same. You never see poor penetration due to the arrow being too heavy. Killing and recovery needs to be the game in hunting game animals. And like everything, except for the Bible, nothing is for sure. It is all about increasing your chances to reach your objective. I think the objective shouldn't be just reaching the target but rather reaching the other side of the target. And that ain't happening in the Game today. Btw, Rocket Man, you mention the importance of Kinetic energy regarding penetration because of the need for Mass AND velocity not just one or the other. Momentum is just that....Mass X velocity. That seems to be the best predictor of an object continuing forward progress upon resistance. Heavy is just not fond of stopping.

These are the rabbit holes I love going down. I’ve seen several of these types of studies and often got that gut feeling that something was off, but I’m not the rocket wizard mad scientist to give the data set the proper autopsy. That you for this!

MAN!!!!! I’ve only made it to 32 minutes in and I’ve done hit rewind like a dozen times. Awesome info and great video. I’m going to have to watch this video a few more times to get everything.

I love this conversation to teach/help us hunters make more efficient kills. Thanks to THP, RF, and Rocket Man!

Keep it up! Not boring, just reassurance that foam is a good backstop and all those "penetration tests" I see aren't proving anything but ballistic gel is also a good stopping material. All bow hunters should all want 1 thing, the most effective killing setup. You guys are providing information to what that is!

The first thought that comes to mind with this for me is. "Wait, aren't foam targets specifically designed for the express purpose of stopping your arrow?"

Ashby’s penetration study is the only one that is real world data points and the only One that matters. We don’t hunt foam or ballistic gel

I used to shoot heavier arrows with high foc. Not any more. I pretty much shoot the opposite of what Ranch Fairy recommends and have great success with it. I shoot a fast bow with fairly light arrows and a moderate mechanical broadhead and it blows through whitetails easily. I shot a mature buck and I broke both front legs pinning the heart. He went down on his front end and plowed for 60 yards and expired. I get to shoot a lot of deer where I am and this set-up works perfectly for me. I shot a deer quartering away sharply and it went in the front of the hip and came out the front where the leg meets the body. I shot a doe yesterday and it exited out at the leg joint on opposite side and it broke her leg upon exit. I give a few examples because I hear people say if you hit bone your not getting a pass through with that set up and it's just not true.I'm shooting over 80 lbs of kinetic energy. I shoot 40 yards and under on deer and prefer 30 and under. I can do this with one pin and at 40 I hold 3/4 up the body. I have 50 years experience bow hunting and this set-up is the best I've ever had. I've watched lot of testing and looked at charts regarding penetration but nothing proves anything like real world in the field results. Some of the biggest penetration issues I see today is people shooting lower poundage/energy bows using a big expandable broadhead that waste a lot of energy trying to open on impact and using light arrows. That combination is not good if you hit anything hard. If you shoot lower poundage use a 2 blade fixed head and add some arrow weight. If your shooting a 70 plus pound high IBO bow you can shoot just about anything but keep to a moderate size head. We're just killing the deer not trying to cut it in half lol. With all that said go by your own experience and use what works best for you and what you have confidence in. A tuned bow with the right spined arrows is a must. Good luck to everyone.

Ashby Bowhunting Foundation approves this message.

Amazing discussion

To me, the irony of this is that Dr. Ashby has already done the live animal testing and many do not believe in what he is teaching. The 12 factors is what he learned and is passing on to the world. If this is what it takes to make believers then it can only be a bennifit to all bowhunters. Great work guys, I love the info!!!

I think what's possibly missing from all the physics talk and math, is how these numbers are applied to the actual arrow setups in hunting. I could sit here and tell you that my arrow has 200 ft/lbs of KE so it's going to kill a deer for sure, but then I show you my setup and I have screwed a baseball on the tip for higher mass...there are more variables like: arrow flight, how the spine reacts(absorbs) energy on impact, how efficient your broadhead is in terms of not shedding energy when and after contact is made, etc. etc.. My intuition (w/o providing data or sources) is that the heavier arrow setups use the bow's stored KE more efficiently, and that generally the heavier arrows have stiffer spines which deflect less on impact, and that lastly a slower(heavier) arrow will be easier to achieve ideal arrow flight with, for a number of reasons.*Edit: which is why heavier setups tend to "work" better, and why just using 2 measurements (mass & velocity) cannot give and accurate indication of killing power when it comes to arrows.

Thx you Lordy!!! Great insight and logical discussion. Really enjoyed this as I sit in the hotel finalizing items to keep me occupied chasing grizzly this week. Looking forward to more discussions in this vane. 🏹🐻🏹🐺🏹

I shoot a 650 grain arrow with 20% FOC so pretty heavy. However this is the only video that has given me pause. I might just be too dense to understand so if someone can put it into lamens terms for me that might help. My issue is that I don’t believe the study is saying that 13” of penetration is the max you would see on an animal but rather foam. I don’t think the people who did this test are claiming that their foam is the same density as an animal. And then on top of that I don’t understand why the density of the foam matters as far as effecting how much one arrow will penetrate vs. another. It seems like if an arrow would penetrate more on an elk than another arrow then it would do the same on foam but with a smaller difference. I think some people might argue that it’s impossible to actually have consistency when shooting through animals even if dead because their are so many variables between each animal. I’ve read a lot of ashbys work and I still lean that direction but I don’t understand why the foam is irrelevant to how an arrow would act in the field. But again it might be me. I might be more dense than the foam itself.

I loved the discussion with the rocket man! I watched/listened 3 times to get all the information. I’ve been looks forward to this video! Thank you for putting out such good content to help the weekend warrior hunters find success! This has quickly become my favorite hunting channel!

Interesting stuff. My takeaway is forget the testing, just copy what Joel does. He has to be one of the most accomplished active bow hunters on the planet. Whatever he is using obviously works. No further proof is needed.

Great video! “Whatever testing you do tells you the results of the test with that target”…best line of the video. Stats 101 will tell you this…when using regression (the analysis used in the video) you should only make inferences within the context of the study and data set. Inferences outside the study and the range of data is a slippery slope. If you want to make inferences on animals you need you need to change the study parameters and collect more data.

It’s simple physics really…Mass vs Velocity. You can increase the velocity by lowering the mass or you can increase the mass which will lower the velocity. Given that all the give/takes are equal it will produce the same amount of energy. Doesn’t matter what kind of target you are shooting. If you are taking a shot on a deer in the field and you shot that animal in the heart with each of these setups that were used in the test than they would each produce the exact same results….same reason a 130 grain bullet out of a .270 can produce just as much energy if not more than a 170 grain bullet out of a .308. The .270 makes up the difference in velocity and the .308 makes it up in mass. Where you would see a difference is in the ballistic coefficient of each bullet where the lighter .270 bullet will surpass the heavier .308 in energy delivered on target at longer ranges. I’ve never really bought into the heavy arrow versus light arrow argument because physics has already proven that “The momentum of the object is equal to the mass of the object times the velocity of an object” I.E Momentum = mass X velocity. Just shoot whatever your bow shoots best. A 70 pound pull bow is going to produce the exact same results every single time no matter the weight of the arrow because it produces the exact same amount of momentum every time you pull the release. Accuracy is the name of the game in archery….if your not shooting what produces the best results with your setup because you think some heavy setup or lighter setup is gonna produce some kind of magical results, it’s not.

Practical use... real hunting situations... As much as I enjoy learning about penetration the biggest issues I have is not about how deep will my arrow go but rather how much will it drop every yard of distance that I am incorrect. In other words, If I'm shooting at a pronghorn at 40 yards and as I'm drawing my bow I fail to notice that it took 3 steps further away, will my 800 grain arrow at 210 fps still get to its target destination with me using my 40 yd pin or will it miss? Will a 400 grain arrow at 300 fps hit very close to it's mark? These real hunting situations is where all this arrow penetration stuff loses it luster. Don't get me wrong, I believe in a good balance of all of this and I think arrow penetration is a great conversation to have. But if you fail to inform the practical uses of how this needs to be applied to the average hunter then it's very misleading. For instance, an 800 grain arrow at 15-20 yards hog hunting is pretty great! But at 40 yards at a pronghorn?... not the best choice. An elk can take one big step and easily move 4 yards. Shooting very slow arrows will cause you to miss your mark and is more of a concern to me than "will I get enough penetration to drive my arrow through the animal and into the dirt?". We aren't trying to kill the dirt.... I've heard so many say "well if I make a bad hit am I going to get penetration?". And that is a legit real world hunting situation. Because we know it happens. But the question they should ask first is "why did I make a bad hit?" Was it because they didn't pay attention to what the animal was doing? was it because the animal moved? was it because the archer really needs to practice more to become a better archer and make better shot choices? was it because the shooter aimed incorrectly? was the shooter so jacked and nervous that they didn't handle the making of the shot? So many more questions are more important than "how deep does my arrow go?".

Now that was 43 minutes of time well spent. Great stuff guys!

Thank you for sharing a great study and for the thoughtful discussion! One key, and I am a scientist and surgeon, is to recognize this: the animals we enjoy hunting have a highly variable structure, not a uniform structure like foam. Said another way, a game animal’s target (thoracic cavity) is like a pole (humerus) in front of a sliding pocket door (scapula) that together are slightly to one side, in front of a hard cage (ribs) whose bars our arrow tip must go between/through, that finally houses the soft items we are trying to hit (lungs, pulmonary/great vessels, and/or heart). And, to make it even more challenging…they move! So, I try to keep it simple: I do the best I can with what God gave me (I stay strong to easily pull my bow, practice to stay accurate, practice from a variety of angles) I choose a balance of mass and velocity, and a strong and reliable arrow tip…and I leave the rest to Him 😊

Thanks for the great discussion. To add test data. I’ve been shooting double lung pass throughs for many decades with 60# 27.5” DL 72ft lbs/s^2 compound. I’ve shot everywhere from 370gn to 510gn through whitetail with 100gr swhacker 2”. 370 barely passes through larger whitetail and lays on ground. 420gn passes through both lungs and sticks 6” in ground. 510gn passes lungs just like the 420gn but still won’t pass through shoulder bone and kills my trajectory. After 50+ Midwest whitetail, by compound bow, I shoot 420-440 grain total weight and have 100% pass through on decent shots. iMHO 420-440 grain is optimal for my setup.

Seems to me I remember reading something a while back that even the FBI knows that real penetration of defensive handgun bullets is something like 20-30% deeper than the results in gel. Could be mistaken on the specific numbers, but the point is that it's standard knowledge that penetration on "meat" will be more than in gel.

Us people who want to learn and get better will watch almost any length video! Leave the “muh 70 yard elk arrows” people to themselves.

Foam and gel have a high level of friction unlike the inside of an body. For every inch of penetration into a target you have one more inch of arrow grabbing onto the target interior. Inside an animal this friction is largely reduced from the equation.

Some of y'all need to seriously chill. Remember: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Live your life Pursue what makes you happy Afford others the liberty to do the same. As has been said already: Ashby listed 12 factors so people stop getting wrapped around only a couple of them. Perfect flight and structural integrity are listed first for a reason. Great job THP!

Love every video! Could put up 2 hrs of walking in woods and scouting, and I’d watch it

CLIFF NOTES: high density foam does not equate to animal tissue. This study was well done but doesn't explain animal results.

in order to get the results of penetration through bone that were looking for. wed have to paper tune through that particular bone. set a target made of shoulder bone a few feet in front of a foam target.

Joel’s test wasn’t about maximum penetration into foam. He was comparing penetration between different arrow weights, launched from different “fixed kinetic energy machines.” Period. Why try to infer this data to penetration on animals, or maximum total depth of penetration an arrow could ever achieve? As stated the foam is a homogeneous target, unlike an animal. Meaning that you can get consistent results with the foam (as seen) where you will never have consistent results with any animal tissue. You guys never really addressed the whole point of Joel’s study… Why does the 350 and 650 grain arrow have the same penetration? Instead you argued off on several different tangents. So could you explain why the 350 grain arrow and 650 grain arrow have the same penetration in a controlled homogenous target? Because the Kinetic energy is the same? Right? Then why would it be any different on an animal?

I only took a handful of undergraduate physics and engineering classes so I'm sure I don't fully understand all the variables, but my first thought in seeing this study is it tests arrows in a medium that is highly elastic and thus has a high coefficient of friction. Stiffer mediums, specifically those with high tensile strenth/hardness such as bone, have a low coefficient of friction. Therefore, it isn't surprising to me to see that arrows of varying weights with field points have negligible differences in penetration of foam, and one could presume that there would be negligible differences in penetration of soft tissue. However, it would make logical sense to me that a projectile with low mass and high velocity would react differently with a high-hardness object than would a high mass, low velocity projectile. "Plan B" and all that. I'm only halfway through the video so this may get addressed later and make me look like a big dummy.

Nothing wrong with a long video. I was using the Vector HMR arrows with 125 points and my target was catching them no problem. I picked up some 200 points from Sirius and immediately the arrows were passing right through the same block. I had to go buy a denser and thicker block to catch them. Weight matters.

Newton's 2nd law of Law states Force = mass x acceleration. The Force in this case is the bow (take the 70 pound compound for example). Mass would be the 4 arrows. All the acceleration on the arrow occurs during the power stroke of the bow. Force (bow at a set poundage/draw length) remains constant. If you change the mass of the arrows, you will also change the acceleration of the arrow. If F = m x a, then a = F/m. Basic algebra. If you increase the mass of the four arrows, the acceleration on the arrow will go down accordingly. The bow's force doesn't change. The change in arrow mass will result in a change in the acceleration of the arrow. It's basic middle school physics. Acceleration = Force/Mass. If the force is your bow, increasing the arrow mass will cause the arrow's acceleration to go down. Statements about heavier arrows having superior penetration have been somewhat exaggerated by the Ranch Fairy & his followers. Like most things in life, balance is good! A medium weight arrow, with a decent amount of FOC, & a razor sharp cut on contact broadhead is probably your best killing arrow in your quiver for most situations. Making the arrow extra heavy isn't going to do much for you. If you like shooting deer in the guts, that would justify throwing a hatchet (wide mechanical broadhead) through a deer. If you hit a bone or something, however, you may be screwed. I would take two holes entry & exit) over a wide broadhead not penetrating very well. Your discussion about foam penetration and applying that animal penetration is a waste of time. To say field point arrow is only giving you 13" in the foam & comparing that to an animal means nothing. You are taking good data & making bad & confusing conclusions from it. Joel Maxfield's results seem dead on to me. My theory on the stick bows having slightly more variance is probably shooter related. A compound bow with a good backwall shot with a release is probably going to be more consistent than someone pulling back a recurve bow with no backwall. If you're shooting fingers, the difference may be exaggerated even more. Three guys shooting the same compound wouldn't matter much if they are pulled back to the backwall & have a good release. Three guys shooting the same recurve would probably vary quite a bit. One guy shooting it would be more consistent, but it's harder to be consistent with a stick bow just the same.

First off I love watching yalls videos. THP has taught me a ton over the past few years. But in this video it seemed as if there was a little bias toward heavy arrow setups being better and they may be. My opinion is the test was spot on with showing what different weight arrows will do if everything else is equal within reason ( not talking 350 grain arrows or 900 grain) The ranch fairy kept saying no arrow will penatrate more than 13 inches then said he's seen multiple arrows in the field that penatrate more than that into an animal. Also said theoretically we should never shoot elk based off the test. He's comparing apples to oranges. The test is saying no arrow will penatrate that foam more than 13 inches at 70 lb draw weight. I think the test is also saying if your 650 grain arrow will blow through an elk then so should a 450 grain arrow if it were to hit the exact same spot and as long as it's the same bow , same draw weight, same quality of broadhead, and same quality of arrow. I know yall have had a lot of success since you went heavy setups. But was that also the same time yall started shooting super sharp high quality fixed blades? The only time I think it would make a huge difference on penatration is using a lesser spine arrow (due to lighter broadhead) and hitting big bone I think the arrow would flex terrible making penatration suffer. Also , I've seen yall mention with the heavy setups you don't have to be as picky on the angle of the deer when it comes in giving you more chances to kill that shooter that comes in quartering to but do yall miss out on other opportunities say in the 30 - 40 yard range because your shooting a 600 -700 grain arrow i'm guessing around 230 - 250 fps vs a 450 grain arrow at 290 - 310 fps? Just my opinion and fuel for thought. Again I appreciate all the videos.

Seems like a RF, RM, THP collab is in order. Building a test analog for such testing purposes. Gel block with "bones"(either PVC conduit or dowel rods) wrapping the gel block in 2 or 3 layers of leather hide, with mud or sand caked on the outside.

That was absolute gold 👍 it all makes perfect sense! After shooting 65 deer with a bow, Nothing beats a heavy arrow and a fixed blade single bevel broad head 😎

Great stuff. I believe I have heard your point in the past be, because the kinetic energy is constant, we need to be mainly looking at the broadhead? Thanks for this information. Again, great stuff!

If I have an animal standing behind a 12" by 12" window. Point of aim is center of mass. If both arrows hit the target in the same place... they will penetrate almost the exact same. That is established. However there will quickly be a yardage where your heavy arrow will either hit the window frame.... or you will compensate in some way. This takes your aim off of center/mass and introduces human error. The light arrow shooter doesn't have to compensate his sight picture for long after the heavy arrow shooter. (YOUR PENETRATION PERFORMANCE IS GOING TO BE THE SAME AS LONG AS THE ARROW HITS THE SAME CONSISTENCY TARGET.) Love you guys. Love what your doing. Love your openmindedness toward the sport. Keep slayin.

Is the solution to Penetration not the psi. at which the arrow hits the target? Lighter and/or slower arrows hit the target at less velocity and/or force than heavier and faster arrows.

Very interesting and timely. I just went from a 394 grain arrow to a 620 grain arrow and at the 3d range I was expecting to see a noticeable increase in penetration. But I didn’t notice any increase in penetration which made me really concerned. As a hunter on public lands I haven’t yet harvested my first animal. I wanted to make sure my set up was as lethal as possible I did some calculations and ordered a lighter insert that will result in a 520 grain arrow with I plan to compare to the other three for flight and penetration and noise levels. Thanks for the great video.

Space physicist/engineer & bow hunter, here. Can confirm we love this content. It's like sitting in the lectures we love, but even better because it's about things we enjoy the most (have on our minds constantly). Please keep this content coming. An aside, as a new bow hunter (started in 2020), I try to learn as much as I can from seasoned hunters who demonstrate their knowledge through success. They have first-hand experience that can't be easily, logically argued. However, they don't often have a theoretical framework to explain what they know to work. Insert this category of content. It is certainly "overcomplicating" archery for many people, and for those who appreciate following the physics of this it may initially increase the learning curve. I'm excited to find where the theory and application curves meet, and it seems like that can only come from tinkering with the setup, practicing on a controlled range, and then applying it in the field. I find all of this translates to improved performance and thus ethical shooting. Just my two cents. Cheers.

I've started down the rabbit hole myself. Currently sitting at 500 grains...I know I know, we ain't quite there yet. Lol. Trying to build a good all around combo. Just rabbit holing over broadhead selection. QAD exodus or Gruszzlystik massai blak label and go.....

So is it safe to say that kinetic energy is more important than foc?

Joel’s the man a straight up killer

Thanks for all of your research. Just curious- you make a square box 4x4 and 12 inches deep. the front and back of the box are carpet and plywood. The exit board is plywood then carpet. Fill this box as tight as you can with ranch fairy ground pig and then you would somewhat get a real world test on penetration. I also wonder how much blood lubricates an arrow compared to the foam which is dry. just some thoughts

I am curious to what arrow diameter and obstructions like a scapula affect the penetration of differently weighted arrows.

Hear me out....what if someone traps a bunch of pigs, ethical headshots... now you have a bunch of animal targets

Where's Ranch Fairy's arrow test..Is there one out there..

Beautiful work

One thing to keep in mind I found from putting apples in front of my target. Once the shaft is lubricated I would get pass through on a 18” foam target. Where as with a dry arrow I could only get 12” penetration. In the game world the arrow gets lubricated from blood. It’s an added factor in penetration I think. Hard to get data on that but it would be cool to see your thoughts on this. Thanks. Love your shows

Well there ya go!!!! 👍🏻

They should have included a distance factor in this test as well. I know gravity is constant, but would it's force effect the arrow sizes differently. Could a heavier arrow maintain more Ke at longer range? Maybe there would be penetration disparities between the heavy and light arrows at longer ranges.

Love these videos!

It seems to me that this all goes back to one of Ranch Fairies original lines, make your setup for "Plan B".

I can literally watch you guys all day.

Enjoyed the data. Though, the obsession with that its a foam target and not an animal made me laugh.

Thanks for the video guys... Mechanical Engineer listening intently. The constant KE thing makes absolute sense. What has been proven is that the FOAM is a content KE absorber or dampener so to speak. To The Ranch Fairy's point, my hypotheses is that your would have very similar results on unfired gel. The thought I had was to repeat the test with on Non-homogeneous layer target to simulate an animal is some way. Much easier said than done I know, but maybe a layer of outer fibers, a layer of very heavy mil plastic, a composite layer of wood, then possible an open cell foam. My theory is if the exactly same set of arrows would look VERY different with drastic differences is penetration. Definitely some things to ponder!! Thanks so much for your efforts!!

This all makes sense when you realize that an arrow being shot into foam isn't just punching a hole in the foam. While the arrow is piercing the foam, it is also pulling/pushing the shaft through foam that is squeezing against it. Every extra inch of penetration is also an extra inch of resistance. This is particularly relevant to field points as they are not cutting material, they are just pushing into and through it.

I wonder what results one would get doing the exact same series of tests, still using the same foam target, but using broadheads of varying degrees of sharpness from very dull to extremely sharp. Perhaps even vary the angle that the broadhead spreads from point to heel, from very long to very short.

Mechanical engineer who is also a bowhunter (works for an archery company too) here... Some convicting talk in here, haha. I'm convinced that a more accurate test would be to make a two sided box that uses a leather membrane and is filled with a Jello gelatine filling. Balistics gel acts too much on an arrow shaft once it has penetrated a sertain difference. Using liquid inside is too far away from the real thing too. That being said, I think you would get passthrough on most of your shots making it hard to get a good compariative data set. Possibly paired with a high speed camera that can meausre ext speed of the arrow? Lots of possibilities here.

It would be interesting to develop a foam(closed cell,etc.) that resembles the fiber/cellular average muscular density. All organs, muscle tissue has a different elasticity,density etc and if a product could be developed to resemble such a material. Then start into the consideration of bone.

43 minutes and 14 seconds is not an inordinate amount of time spent when the goal is clean, ethical kills achieved by pass throughs (even if hitting bone, either on entry or exit).

Lets get em boys

I have tried explaining to him that these kind of tests literally proves nothing about penetration into animals. He seems not to care. Keeps trying to dismantle the Ashby reports without basically saying so......yet we know clear as day what he's trying.

This was neat to listen too I shoot 60 pounds 28 in draw and a 370grain total weight I’ve blown through all my deer also so I’m not changing but I like learning

I've set up with a 60# recurve shooting 715 grain arrows with about 20% FOC. This data isn't going to change that. I've had very good luck with this setup, and the fact that I can make my arrows go a little faster means nothing to a traditional archer shooting under 25 yards. I would like to see some data exploring whether heavy arrows have an advantage in that they resist deflection off of hard surfaces, and tend to exert more force through the target than sideways when striking a bone.

Thanks for sharing this. I'm learning something every time I watch a THP video. It doesn't matter if it's you guys out in the woods or interviews with wildlife biologists and aerodynamicists. It is always informative.

We have all had deer move or duck your arrow. FPS is just as important as penetration. If you are shooting faster the more accurate you are on a flinching deer. Gun hunters argue this same crap. Double lung a deer with a 22 mag it dies. double lung a deer with a 375 hh it dies. Accuracy kills. One factor increases accuracy in certain situations and that’s FPS not weight unless you try a bad shot or though cover. Probably not a popular opinion but taking in fps accuracy in a flinching target should be part of the equation

Pretty clear that you're shooting a kinetic energy device into a uniform kinetic energy sink. Pick up a lot of velocity related Kinetic energy with the lighter arrow which will make this test do exactly what you're seeing. Kinetic energy is kinetic energy it doesn't matter where you get it from. They're going to hang about the same on penetration with uniform testing media. Totally agree. It completely proves why we shoot at uniform foam to stop arrows. Your friction coefficients are uniform. Not so an animal.

As a retired professional engineer I find these discussions excellent. For good testing we are forced to use a consistent media. Animals are a very inconsistent media, so doing testing on dead animals is very difficult. One of the better efforts done on practical testing media is a bullet study done by Gary Sciuchetti in Reloader Magazine. He found that wet phone books(soaked in a tank for a controlled time) were a practical media for extensive bullet testing that was similar to meat. Bone density is huge variable in different bones and bone locations. That makes it very difficult to test for consistent results. Gary did some deflection studies on bullets using plywood at different angles and distances in front of a target. Granted bullet testing is not arrow testing as bullet expansion comes into play with penetration but I think the media testing is useful. On a side note I have had 8 broadside elk pass throughs on bulls using a 450 grain carbon arrow with a cut on contact 125 grain head out of a 65lb compound. Things go sideways when you hit bones, shoulder, spine, or shoulder blades. Now I shoot a 550 grain arrow with a cut on contact head at 68 lb compound, yet to be tested on a bull.

If y’all are really looking for individuals to send you data, then make a standardized list of information you want to know about so you can correlate across all the different users. I would be more than happy to share anything I do out in the field.

Good video, a little confusing bc it just opened up alot more questions but still great content. Aaron is asking the right question... what does it take to kill "blank" animal consistantly 100% of the time. The answer to that question is very simple. A very well placed shot with a sharp enough object that does 1 of 2 things.. 1. massive hemmoraging (external or internal) to the point that the blood supply can't keep up and the animal bleeds out and expires. 2. The animals ability to breathe or it's mobility is terminally damaged to the point that the animals organs can no longer function to support life. Whatever tool a hunter uses to achieve those goals listed above is the correct tool for that job and nothing else matters except killing the animal as fast and humainly as possible.

Here's a non scientific data set to consider. Just a casual observation. Most of the animals I see shot on the outdoor networks, with expandables, have half the arrow protruding from them as they run off

I am a civil engineer. If you want more penetration turn up you bow poundage and sharpen your broad heads. It doesn’t matter what the target is. More energy = more penetration. Every arrow has the same energy coming off the same bow (without changing draw poundage) regardless of arrow weight. KE=1/2mv^2. KE is constant if you don’t change draw weight. If mass increases velocity decreases. If mass decreases velocity increases. Sharper broad heads mean less resistance in the target which means more energy is conserved in the arrow and can therefore penetrate farther. Penetration is all about energy and energy transfer. Energy is constant without changing draw poundage. Energy transfer will be more efficient with sharper broad heads. Optimization of energy transfer in this case would be more penetration for arrows. Bullets on the other hand you want less penetration and instead bullet expansion so that the bullet can dump all its energy in the animal before exiting the animal.

I think the big question most people wanna know is whether or not a heavier grain arrow flying slower, or a lighter grain arrow flying faster... Will penetrate bone better? I think Arron was trying to get that question out there but didn't quite say it

The foam test data was excellent. You need to test on a uniform medium to get accurate data. Testing on animals incurs too much variability. The graph basically tells us that higher velocity with less weight is equivalent to lower velocity with more weight as it relates to penetration.

If you think lighter and faster is better. Get a 223 with a 62 grain bullet and a 308 with a 150 grain bullet and shoot both through a cinder block...both are gonna poke holes in the front but only one is gonna retain mass an energy out the other side. Light and fast is awesome until it hits something hard.

Excellent very interesting video.

Might as well shot tank armor, concrete wall. It would still yield same results. For info to have meaning, the target should be similiar to the target. As you always say, this is hunting, not archery.

Some of the best advice ever given to archers is in this video by T-Bone and Waddell ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OJGUAO_NBN4.html

5.9" (15cm) of ballistic gel equal to average body of big hunting animal. (meat) If take average big animal body size as 31.5" (80cm) Than 13" (33cm) of ballistic gel equal to 69.4" or 5.79ft (1.76m) of animal body (meat). 31.5"/5.9"x13" => 69.4" or 5.79ft (1.76m)

Are y’all still doing the give away of the fancy stuff from previous video and if you are how to enter in it

That data's is totally correct. Stick bows depending from construction has more difference in efficiency with light and heavy arrows, or allmost same. Compound bow much more efficient in that way, with some limits. In average you have same Bow, with same poundage, and same amount of potential kinetic energy..... That is obvious. If you have 2-4 different arrow with same spine, same aerodynamic geometry, drag force, and only different weight - they get the Same amount of energy from your Same bow.... That is obvious ... In hunting society this obvious fact is like no one hear about? Only difference would be in speed, because of different mass. And little bit in drag force apply to weight of arrow - that is that small difference in penetration. More weight has more momentum of inertia - drag force has less impact in slowing down. But that difference is minimal. If more detailed, More weight has more momentum of inertia (mass), and less speed. Less speed get less Drag force and make less impact in slowing down of more mass (inertia resistance). With light arrow opposite. More speed of arrow get more drag force, and less mass give less inertia to resist it. Drag force is bigger because of more speed of arrow and make more impact in slowing down of less mass. Ability to save same speed for all long distance is lower (with same fletching on both arrows). Energy don't disappear anywhere, only transform from one form to another. Joules of kinetic energy are same. For example, there is practical exploring about shoulder bone and ballistic gel: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-sfaYMwU2hwI.html 2 broadhead arrows 361gn & 556gn, with same 60lbs bow, get different speed: 318fps (96.9m/s) and 257fps (78.3m/s) ... Get through scapula (shoulder) bone and ballistic gel about 10.5" (26.6cm) with difference of only 0.118" (3mm) .... ⚡⚡⚡ 5.9" (15cm) of that ballistic gel equal to average body of big hunting animal. (meat) If take average big animal body size as 31.5" (80 cm) That difference is about ~ 0.63" (16mm) of real animal body difference. (meat) Of Second body actually, after going through first one (bone + 31.5" (80cm) of body), and about 24.4" (62cm) of second body... In total ~55.9" (4.66ft) (1.42m) of meat after shoulder bone. Difference is only 0.63" (16mm) of meat...

Rocket man, couldn’t think of a better to set up the technical bow Forum than you!

The secret is.. this. 4mm X-Impact, 100 Steel outsert, 100 grain field tip. 70lb draw. I'm blasting right to the back of a brand new 20" crossbow target block. Try it.. you'll see. Sometimes the tip is sticking out the back. The arrow needs to be smaller than the outsert to stop the arrow from squeezing to a stop Total arrow weight is 440grains I can't even shoot cheap 3d targets or the fletchings get damaged as they are inside the 3d target.

I've bowhunted for 26 years. I've used heavy and light setups. For me and my experiences, a 440-460gr setup for whitetails is my go-to. I've never seen the advantages of a 650gr setup over a 450ish gr setup. 98% of the time i get complete pass throughs using a 440-460gr TAW setup. I will say, i favor a high quality fixed blade broadhead over a mechanical. A super sharp/slicing broadhead can make a world of difference in performance. I'd rather keep a flatter trajectory and speed so I'll stick with my 440-460gr TAW setup.

Remember, 437 grains is only ONE OUNCE!!!. So , generally when they talk about heavy versus light , it’s probably only 200 grains difference, so that is less than half of an ounce difference!!!! In the grand scheme of things, this is just my opinion, I think a well tuned arrow/bow( straight flight ), and a good broadhead are the two bigger factors.

Test into water or make your own super soft gel

I don't agree with the people who want super light arrows, but I also don't shoot rebar. I feel anywhere between 500-600 grains for whitetails, hogs, black bear, and anything else in north America except grizzly. But I also have a 30 inch draw pulling 70 pounds so my arrows move along pretty quick.

"I don't care about targets". Well said. Until someone can do these tests on live animals, many times over, which isn't likely, foam and gel targets mean nothing. Neither do concrete blocks or any other of the ridiculous things youtubers shoot arrows into.

While Interesting the foam testing involves a lot of variables, that would hold little or no comparability with shooting a Deer, for example, multiple different material densities through the deer, different quality, sharpness, and expansion broad heads causing KE loss, even arrow thickness effecting the amount of friction, shaft flex on impact etc. I like a Happy middle ground, not Heavy, not light, really liking the single bevel Broad Heads. tuned arrows, proper shot placement, and Dan Infalt's T-shirts😁

Hey Aaron love it just finished watching the video very interesting. I’m no physicist but to gauge your velocity and weight/momentum or kinetic energy you need something like a blunt tip arrow shooting into like a basketball or soccer ball or weighted medicine ball hanging from a rope/tether something your arrow dumps all its energy into and how far it pushes said object soccer ball basketball. Hope this helps with the depart of whether Kinect energy helps induce any thing…. Hope I helped 🤷

I've been testing vane configurations and comparing vane design for stability. So far the only way to really compare them is to put the same vanes on two arrows of identical weight and drastically different FOC. 4% FOC flies in line with bare shafts no matter what I do, but higher FOC diverges a lot from bare shafts. Higher stability arrows regularly penetrate deeper.

Answer about more impact through bones in animal - is in more efficiency of bow. Not arrow. Answer is in a bow that with same poundage gives more speed (more efficient bow). And in increasing of poundage of that bow (more stored kinetic energy before shoots).

it just shows that speed make up for mass for penetration

Its all about arrow diameter amd the sweet spot in kinetic energy and speed. 0.166 arrow will penetrate way deeper than the standard 0.246 shaft. Its a fact. Arrow weight 420 to 450 max. End of story