Primitive Archer

Main Discussion Area => Arrows => Topic started by: billy on September 03, 2009, 02:00:07 am

Title: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: billy on September 03, 2009, 02:00:07 am
Here's a video showing the Mythbusters team testing sharp wooden tipped arrows vs. stone-tipped arrows. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CWrb3EWWgM&feature=related
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: zeNBowyer on September 03, 2009, 05:03:38 am
Some  interesting  points  but the  guy  with  the  caveman  suit was  so  ridiculous  I  couldn't  sit thru  the  entire video:)
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: Stoker on September 03, 2009, 02:25:05 pm
Interesting but: Killing power is #1 Sharp stick just plug the hole.What happened to weight forward?
Should have been cane or some kind of other shoot for the arrow.also shot from a primitive bow
not a golden eagle center shot boat anchor.      ???A master knapper could knock a point out fairly quick
function over beauty.jmo  I do like the show it has some interesting stuff.
Thanks Leroy  ;D
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: medicinewheel on September 03, 2009, 03:20:37 pm
Exactly what the cavedude says in the last sentence: creativity is what impresses the ladies (I know that for sure, I'm a musician)!
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: Pat B on September 03, 2009, 03:33:42 pm
Wouldn't you all love to get paid(and well I would imagine) for doing what those guys do. I love their show and their expressions when they get to blow something up.  ;D
  Their theory was flawed comparing a sharpened stick to a knapped point. Two different types of wounds. The sharpened stick would plug it's wound and not allow too much blood loss, even inside the animal. Once it was pulled the bleeding would begin. The stone point would begin cutting as soon as it hit skin and continue cutting as long as it remained inside the animal. What would the sharpened stick do when it hit bone?  I was surprised the stone head didn't penetrate better...but ballistic gel isn't the best test medium, is it Billy?  ;)
 Some ancient Europeans would use sharpened sticks but add micro blades along the sides. I saw a similar point that James Parker(Robustus) built and hunted with, successfully! It was an antler tine tip with 5 micro blades inlet into the side of the tip. Sort like the old Satellite replaceable blade points.
  I love mythbusters! ;D 8)
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: recurve shooter on September 03, 2009, 04:40:02 pm
on any projectile test those two do, they test penetration, wich means very little in comparrison to damage done to the critter, i think.
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: recurve shooter on September 03, 2009, 04:48:33 pm
ok, i was deeply anoyed within the first two minutes of the vid. first, they were calling obsidian flint. however, i couldnt find much els to insult. adam is a pretty good knaper, and i actually thought the stick would penatrate further. oh, and their arrows were probably realy off spine, and i am positive that moste of you guys could put up a MUCH better group than that.
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: billy on September 03, 2009, 05:27:40 pm
I agree that there were some flaws in their tests.  first off, I don't feel that ballistic gel is an accurate representation of a real body.  Bodies have bones, sinew, fat, and organs, all of which are different in consistency, and would present different amounts of impediment to penetration.  Also, I feel that ballistic gel "grabs" an arrow much more than real flesh.  Blood and internal fluids act as a lubricant, something lacking in ballistic gel.  Also, some of those arrows didn't appear to be matched in spine because they were flopping around in flight.

It was interesting, but I think the main advantage of stone points is what Cavedude wannabe said: That stone points cut a much larger wound, meaning faster hemorrhage and a much quicker death to the animal. 

Also, I doubt that Jamie made those stone points....did you see his pressure flaking technique???  It was AWFUL!!  Totally wrong, angle with no abrading.....  trust me....he didn't make those points!   
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: recurve shooter on September 03, 2009, 05:38:57 pm
huh. didnt take the time to notice that. i was to anoyed at the fact that they were calling the obsidian flint.

and you have a great point on the way the jell grabs the arrow, i didnt think of that one.

man we are some tough critics aint we?  ;D
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: Shadow Walker on September 03, 2009, 05:49:11 pm
they didn't take into consideration that any type of gel, foam ect, will bind against the shaft, slowing it down. When a sharp broadhead enters flesh, the flesh "opens up" as it slices which would give the arrow considerably more penetration. ( untill it hits bone )
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: sailordad on September 03, 2009, 06:18:13 pm
wel nothing on that surprised me
once again they did it half heartedly,like all their tests
however,Adam did point out that the stone head(obsidion in this case)creates a larger wound channel
therfore allowing the animal to bleed out quicker.
who knows maybe the started with just pointed sticks for poking and stabbing,and over a millenia
learned that adding a sharp rock to the end made for faster and more frequent recovery of game
which means more food,and thats protien.
protien allowed for better brain development,which in turn allowed for more learning ability,which in turn allowed for
the creations of new technologies(what we now call primitive)
personnaly i think if they would have contacted theright people when doing their research for the episode,they could have done better testing
with the appropriate equipment and also the proper knowledge to understand some of the theings ya'll have mentione,like the resistance
differances bewenn flesh and bullistics gel,how it close around a projectil and flesh would open etc.
as far as calling the obsidion flint, i think they were just generalizing with that.if Jamie knew how to knapp,he knew there was a differance between the two.
but like i said,they always do their testing half assed
but i still enjoy the show,who doesnt like to watch stuff blow up >:D 8)
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: DanaM on September 03, 2009, 08:07:00 pm
Instead of ballistic gel they should have at least used pig ;D Then have a barbeque afterwords :)

Come on guys you all watch mythbusters not just for the explosions but also the cute redhead ::) :P ;D
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: recurve shooter on September 03, 2009, 09:57:42 pm
yup. im pretty sure she's a....."model"
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: StevenT on September 03, 2009, 10:01:10 pm
And that is what was wrong with their test, she wasn't in the video.
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: Pappy on September 04, 2009, 06:28:49 am
Cool,I haven't seen that one. The wheels didn't really fit in to well. :)
   Pappy
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: Herm from Bavaria on September 05, 2009, 05:13:00 pm
the greatest fault in this vid was the "bicycle" instead of a real bow!!!

but i like their show. its on tv in germany too. but unfortunately my girlfriend hate them.... >:(
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: DanaM on September 05, 2009, 07:05:56 pm

but i like their show. its on tv in germany too. but unfortunately my girlfriend hate them.... >:(

Probably because of the redhead ;D
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: Herm from Bavaria on September 11, 2009, 04:38:45 pm
...probably... ;D
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: koan on September 16, 2009, 10:28:45 am
shootin 5 ft away isnt a real test...should have shot from 10-20 yards...think there would have been a big difference in penetration and accuracy...
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: stickbender on September 17, 2009, 02:34:01 pm

     I used to watch them, but then I started noticing a lot of flaws, and mistakes, that were later called confirm, busted, etc.  They had a fast draw guy to demonstrate that one of the tales of the old west about a guy who could draw and hit four or five coins, before they hit the ground, when dropped from the back of his hand.  Anyway, the fast draw guy could only do a couple of shots in the time it took for a coin to hit the ground. So they confirmed the story was a myth, and busted.  "ONE" fast draw guy?  I tried to send them a letter, that it was in fact possible, since on You Tube, there was a guy who just set a record, buy drawing, and hitting five balloons, under a second.  But you can't e-mail them.  >:(
You have no recourse in disputing their supposedly confirmed, or busted facts.  So I always just take it as so many grains of salt, and wait for the explosions. ;)  But the Red head is an attractant, ::) even if she is a Vegitarian...... :P :o

                                                                    Wayne
Title: Re: Mythbusters tests primitive arrows.....
Post by: Herm from Bavaria on September 19, 2009, 01:03:08 pm
yeah, yeah the redhead... ::)