Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Flintknapping => Topic started by: JackCrafty on December 12, 2014, 05:59:04 pm
-
Lately I've been making lots of stone hunting points and the most common question I get is, "How heavy do you think the arrowhead should be?" The lightest stone hunting point I make (1" wide) is around 35 grains. The heaviest is around 85 grains.
So, I propose the following rule of thumb: The weight of the arrowhead (in grains) should be no more than your draw weight. For example: Draw weight of 50# means an arrowhead no more than 50 grains.
What do you guys think?
-
If one of you has already proposed this idea, I apologize for not seeing it. I've not been reading much lately. :-\
-
That's a good question. The point weight would also affect the spine strength. I would like to see what the archers think.
WA
-
OK, it looks like this thread will die an early death (40 views and no responses), so I will add some more of my thoughts in an attempt to rescue it.
The vast majority of the people I talk to about arrowheads are familiar with steel broadheads and the typical weight increments. Most will say they are accustomed to 100 grains or 150 grains or whatever. Some will say they have friends that use 150 grain stone points and are very successful. Some know all about the way foreshafts work, how a longer arrow affects spine, how the arrowhead weight affects spine, and so on. And some are completely in the dark about using stone points (or even steel broadheads) for hunting.
Many people I talk to have read the many posts on here about using stone arrowheads and they say they understand the concept but are unclear about what is best. They ask me if I know what is best. I tell them I'll point them in the right direction but they will have to experiment on their own to find what's best. (not really what they want to hear)
So, my goal is to decrease the learning curve and save the "experimentation" phase. This means that I will need to take all the information I've got floating around in my head and nail down a quick and easy solution.
I think I have come up with a solution but it may go against what many archers have come to accept as a "tried and true" system. Namely, that broadheads are broadheads regardless of material (talking about two-edged blades). They all basically work the same. They all basically look the same. And they all basically conform to the principles laid down by archers who were there at the beginning of the modern archery "revival".
Anyway, to make my point, I think most "traditional" thought on stone broadheads is garbage. Bottom line: stone broadheads for arrows should be light in weight and thin in cross section. They should be 1" wide (or whatever) when required by law but not any wider. And they should be made to have a minimal effect on arrow flight. This means that the weight of the arrow should be in the shafting and not in the point.
OK, that's it.
-
Thanks Chip. You responded while I was writing... ;D
-
ive only been using field tips, usually 125 grain. i always thought it i wanted to hunt with the same arrow, id replace the tip with a stone point of the same weight, but your suggesting it should be much lower.
Im still pretty new to matching my arrows with bows, and never knew a heavy head could affect my spine weight
-
Patrick;
It doesn't matter to me what the point weighs as long as it flies good out of the Bow I'm shooting.
-
Wizard, stone is much lighter than metal by volume. That's the main reason for using lightweight stone heads. If you were to match the weight in stone, the arrowhead would be bulkier than the steel point. The arrow will fly well, but the penetration may not be as efficient. Some have posted their frustration with this here on the forum.
Eddie, that's like saying that is doesn't matter what percentage of alcohol a brew has as long as it gets you drunk. Thats' OK, of course. But from my perspective, everyone looks like they're drinking watered-down cheap wine. ;)
-
Patrick, have only killed a few deer with stone, so far I am with the narrow and thin crowd, and no hump at the point hafting transition area. In Pa. min. point width is 7/8"and I would like to experiment narrower someday. So for me it is narrow, thin and smooth transition. Bob
-
Yeah, 7/8" wide is the law in TX too.
-
I know Ralph Conrad could give a great perspective on this, He has killed I think 22 deer with stone some with the same arrow. I remeber asking him about this and I think his answer was it really doesn't matter if the arrow weights are matched or even. As long as they fly good. He had written on the arrows I think the weight and if I remember correctly they varied quite a bit. I could try to get a hold of him and see if he can answer for us. I have very little experience with it.
-
I dont think I agree with your rule of thumb that an arrowhead should be equal in grains to the draw weight in pounds, nor that the head should be light so that it does not affect the flight of the arrow. If the second part were true, then arrowheads of very light weight would produce the best arrow flight. Instead , we find that good flight is a combination of static spine, length, tip weight and shaft weight. No matter the material, an arrowhead is the right weight when , combined with these other factors, we get good flight. It seems to me that to get an arrow with a 50 grain tip to fly well, we would need either a very long or very weak arrow. But most of us shoot arrows that are about 30 inches long, and I have never tried it, but to get a 30 inch arrow with a 50 grain tip to fly well out of a "regular" selfbow, we'd need a very weak spine.
When I make stone tipped arrows, I try to make them as thick as I can, about 11/32nd. I also sometimes add weight in the shaft or hafting materials. Even with these efforts, I feel that my arrows still fly like a stiff arrow (tail right, and impacting left of where I expect. This is one reason I have switched to steel points and weighted adapters for hunting.
Now I realise that in the old days , millions of animals were killed with light points. But I still believe that a combination of factors will contribute to good arrow flight, and that there is no "one size fits all" rule for point weight.
Patric i am always willing to change my opinion and discuss things. I would love tohear more of what you have to say on this. Your opinion is highly valued here.J
-
I do agree with your idea that if we were to make a stone arrowhead weighing 150 grains or so that it would be so big as to impede penetration and even cause some "wind planing". So I guess that I have come to the conclusion that when we hunt with stone points we have to settle for less than perfect flight. Our successes in hunting tell me that this less than perfect flight is still good enough for hunting. Yes I have killed with a stone point, but I dont think I ever realised how well an arrow can fly until I started to play around with bareshafting arrows with various point weight , length, and spine. Onec I had tried many combinations, I realised that I was achieving better flight. I think that the bareshaft test is a great way to see how well tuned your set up is. Have you ever bareshaft tested an arrow with a 50 grain point? I have not.
-
I know Ralph Conrad could give a great perspective on this, He has killed I think 22 deer with stone some with the same arrow. I remeber asking him about this and I think his answer was it really doesn't matter if the arrow weights are matched or even. As long as they fly good. He had written on the arrows I think the weight and if I remember correctly they varied quite a bit. I could try to get a hold of him and see if he can answer for us. I have very little experience with it.
??? I don't understand your reply, Patrick. Seems to me if you kill what you are shooting at with whatever grain point you have , it works.
I haven't killed a deer with a stone point but did put one that weighed around 100 grns through the forehead of a hog. And another point that weighed about 145grn killed a turkey at ten yards. I think the distances we shoot at it doesn't matter as long as your arrow flies good for the distance you are shooting.
I like beer and if it tastes good I don't care about the alcohol. I'd rather drink a beer with dinner then Sweet tea.
-
If you use shoot shafts or cane spine doesn't seem as critical as parrel dowell shafts, something about the natural taper of said arrows seems to help in the spine. I thing that heavy points would help but thin bases and narrow width just don't end up very heavy compared to steel. If they fly good I shoot what ever wt. my heads come out at. Also I will put light heads on heavy shafts and heavy heads on light shafts, I try and keep total weight close to 550 grains for my 50 # bows. I like around 10 grains per pound of bow weight. I guess what I am saying is that I am more concerned about total weight than the actual weight of stone heads. Thin base, narrow and sharp. ;DJust my .02 worth. :o Bob
-
Eddie, sorry if I'm too cryptic on my reply. All I was trying to say is that if someone asks me what is "best" when it comes to stone points, I'm not going to tell him that: "If it kills the thing you're shooting at, it's good." I'm going to tell him that stone points are most effective if they are light in weight and the extra mass that you might need at the tip of the arrow should come from the foreshaft or extra wood at the tip. This "extra" wood might mean putting the fat end of a natural shoot forward or making the arrow longer, for example.
Steve, input from Ralph would be cool. He seems to be in the same boat with Eddie. "If it kills, it's good." I wonder if he has a favorite arrow and what the specs are.
Aaron, I've bareshafted arrows with arrowheads as small as 10 grains from a 50# bow. And I've bareshafted arrows with no points (just sharpened wood) that were intended to be used only for target practice. And I've bareshafted arrows with 100 grain stone arrowheads. Yes, all the different components work together and many different factors contribute to good flight. But the process does not have to be complex.
For me, it's all a matter of creating a shaft from heavy wood with a weak spine. There's always a few of those for every 20 shafts (or so) when gathering the materials together. And when I begin the process of bareshafting and tuning the arrows, I usually leave the arrow a little long and sharpen the wood tip slightly. I don't put the stone in place until the AFTER the arrows are tuned. I will cut back on the tip or sand down the diameter (or whatever I need) to get the final weight to match the "tuned" weight. Not only does this avoid the problem of "What target do I use for stone points?" but it also makes the process seem more true to historical methods.
-
Interesting thread Patrick . I find that most of the points I make for arrows fall into the 75-100 grain range with bases 7/8 to 1". I'm using cane shafts and feel like I have a generous spine range with this material and have not had an issue with flight when hafting points. Danzn bar has a slick method and spine tests shafts and does a quick glue on head in different weights to bare shaft them for best flight. Maybe he'll weigh in on this topic.
Tracy
-
Thanks Tracy. The 75-100 grain range is a hefty point (but not too hefty) and I've made those ranges for some people. I ship them without foreshafts and let them haft those on their own. They are a little thick for my taste. :)
-
Bob, I'm not ignoring you and I'm with ya on the narrow points. I've been thinking about hunting in Iowa (or some place with no broadhead restrictions) someday. I'm going to shoot everything I can with points that match the real things (Cahokia points, Scallorn, Jack's Reef, etc...)
-
To keep this thread going, here are some thought as to why I think we are all exposed to the "heavy point" arrow.
- How else do you solve the problem of building up to proper arrow weight when using light shafts (cedar) that are spined with the strongest or stiffest side opposing the bending force of the spine tester? These types of shafts have the least possible weight with the highest possible spine.
- Large, thick stone points are easier to make.
- Large points are "showy" and look deadly.
- Flint sellers make more money selling the large pieces of stone needed for the big points.
- It's easier for most people to simply replace a heavy steel broadhead with an equal weight stone point instead of making an entirely new arrow.
- The general public doesn't think small points are "real" arrowheads.
- The guys who use small points are weirdos.
-
I've been shooting one that weighs just over 100g , but I have it on a wildrose shaft that has a taper to it so that adds some weight up front also .
I know of a few hunters that match weight on three or more hunting arrows by drilling a small hole in the end of their shaft and inserting enough lead wire or small shot to add weight and match the points , usually in the range of 145-175g .
-
Yeah. I've inserted copper into the front portion of shafts to get the weight desired for some of the arrows I've sold.
-
No other opinions? :-\
-
I wanted to give my opinion. The points that i make and use are thick, Im still working on the thinning. But if i could have it my way they would be thin, for sharpness, because thin points can be sharperon edges. They would also be about 1 in wide. 1 in is still enough width to do alot of damage as it passes the vitals, yet wont effect arrow flight by having a set of wings on the front of the arrow. As a result of the two parameters(1in and thin) The point would also be light (50-75Gr). My experience with killing deer is that the size of the hole going through the vitals doesn't matter. A .22 cal will kill a deer if you put it through the heart. It is more important to have the accuracy needed to hit vitals and penetration to go all the way through the animal. More penetration will kill the animal faster(2 lungs v's 1 lung), and with a better chance of recovery.
On another note I think that the public has misconceptions( their not good enough anymore) about stone points because there is a huge push in modern archery for wider broad heads( 2" cutting diameters, etc) I think that this wider is better has pushed into primitive archers. Maybe people that shoot big points on arrows are doing it for the extra width.
Lessons learned from modern archery: I have shot compounds for 15 years before PA. One lesson that i learned and still applies is that you cant put sails on the front of the arrow and expect pinpoint accuracy( unless the bow is perfectly tuned). Thats why they invented the expandable broadheads, and we know how popular those are. the evidence doesnt lie. If you have pinpoint accuracy and maximum damage to the animal, then you will be more successful.
-
Here is the reply I got from Ralph:
In the beginning I didn't know what type to start with so I started with a corner notched point similar in shape to a steel Zwickey. It worked very well. Over time and many styles, I've come to realize several things about stone points and self bows.
Weight isn't as important as size and placement of shot .
I've settled on triangle points such as the Cahokia due to ease of making and hafting, controllable dimensions, and most important of all the penetration. Self bows are generally slow in comparison to modern fiberglass bows and shot placement and penetration are paramount for good success rate. When making an arrowhead for hunting we aren't concerned with art, but function. I make my points 7/8th of an inch to 1 inch wide at the bottom and about 1.75 to 2 inches long. The thickest place on the point should be just above the ending arrow shaft. I like to end the shaft no less than 1/4 of an inch above the notches.
Weight wise, mine weigh about 120 grains plus pitch glue and sinew wrapping. I did do some experimenting a few years back and found that at 20 yards, I could shoot an 80, 100, 120 grain head within 2 inches of each other inside an 8 inch circle. Weight really doesn't matter to me as much as getting the head on straight.
Softer and cooked materials.... make the points slightly thicker. Raw material can be a little thinner.
Hope this helps. Ralph
-
Thanks for your opinions guys!
Sasquatch, I wasn't aware of the "very wide broadhead" culture. 2" wide blades? If this is creeping into stone arrowpoint mentality we are doomed...
Caveman, thanks for that reply. Good to see his experimentation results at 20 yards especially.
-
I'll chime in as a newbie. Don't we use a heavy head to drag the arrow? When I hunted with a wheelie bow back in the day I shot the same weight broadhead as I did target tips. I got the same performance out of a broadhead as I did a target point. Why would a stone point be any different than a metal point? Billy Berger has a video of the difference in penetration between stone and metal, with very little difference. 50 seems light to me, kinda like the difference between a .22 and a .44 mag. Also just my .02.
Utah is also 7/8ths
-
JoJo, yeah, a heavy point puts a lot of weight forward and many archers are accustomed to heavy points on lightweight shafts. The system works for many people who have gotten used to it.
Some say a heavy front end makes the arrow more "stable". I don't know exactly what that means but tests have shown that speed is decreased on projectiles when the front is very heavy. The tail end of the arrow tends to rise up during flight and create more drag than an arrow with evenly distributed weight.
-
But speed isn't as important on a heavy arrow than it is on say a 24 inch carbon arrow that is lighter. From my understanding a heavy, slow arrow will have the same penetration as a light fast one. Like I said before, I am still learning. Topics like this are nice to see two sides to the argument, and take what others have learned and mold it into something that works for you.
-
Jackcrafty: Yep 2".
-
Dang. :o
-
The 2 " wide broad heads are mechanicals that basically fly like a field point and open as it is impacting the target. I have seen some of Ralph's broad heads in person and they are not excessively large.
-
I shot a similar broadhead (Gators)when I shot a compound, They also pivot to allow the blade to pass ribs and such. I hit a 3 point at about 60 and cut his jugular. It was a short, but rather large blood trail.