If we could bow hunt who would own a bow

[sirgoldalot]

So you think an arrow through some part of your body wouldn't hurt that much are you serious. Looks painful to me, the thing shooters should be thinking about most when they hunt is killing as humanely as possible and using the equipment to do this as consistently as possible. There are laws regarding minimum muzzle energy when hunting deer for a reason. Someone wanting to hunt with a bow because it looks like fun shouldn't be hunting.

 

Accuracy is also about the animal moving between you letting the arrow go and it reaching the target. A good compound bow will give you around 300 fps and 70 ft/lbs of energy. Less than some air rifles.

Comparison.

Round Type Weight Muzzle Energy 2832 ft/lbs. Muzzle Velocity 2900 ft/sec. 308 Winchester BBA JHP 175.

 

 

thats why bow hunters shoot at under 30 yards with 420 grains and you shoot at hundreds of yards with 160 grains

 

don't know of an air rifle that shoots 400+ grains?

Edited November 3, 2013 by sirgoldalot

[Kes]

Could you tell me how your bullet kills, as you seem to know how a broadhead kills ?

 

ukdeer

I'm not posting after this so look away now.

 

If you dont see there is a rather large difference in impact energy - I cant help you.

Have you seen bullets enter ballistic gel - bit different to a broadhead which cuts and maybe rotates a bit with very low energy imparted. The wound is different as a consequence and nobody shoots animals without ballistic/expanding tips if they want a quick humane kill. The two differ considerably I suggest. Hence my preference for the bullet. Just my personal view.

[ordnance]

 

Took longer than I thought it would to be honest, but anyhow.......cue the photo' of the deer with its lower jaw shot off

I am sure the mods can remove the image if they think it is inappropriate..

 

 

Could you tell me how your bullet kills, as you seem to know how a broadhead kills.

The question was not directed to me . But as far as I am aware an arrow has to hit a structure to damage it. A high velocity rifle bullet does not have to directly hit a structure to destroy it so a near miss on a vital organ will destroy it fragments from HV bullet can also be fatal something you don't get from an arrow. A near miss with a arrow could leave the animal to suffer a near miss with a HV bullet is more likely to kill it cleanly which is what we all want isn't it. ?

 

 

The higher the velocity of the bullet, the more kinetic energy, and the greater the temporary cavity size, which may be more than (10 times the caliber of the bullet.) Rifle bullets generally have a high velocity >2000 feet per second

Edited November 3, 2013 by ordnance

[Scully]

I am sure the mods can remove the image if they think it is inappropriate..

 

 

 

I can't speak for the mod's, but the only thing I find inappropriate is you attempting to prove your point by posting a picture of a deer wounded by an arrow, whereas there will be just as many if not more (given the prevalence of rifles over bows) examples of deer wounded by gunfire. Your picture proves nothing regarding arrows v bullets other than to prove the point that a projectile needs to be placed in the right place to ensure a clean kill.

[ordnance]

 

Your picture proves nothing regarding arrows v bullets other than to prove the point that a projectile needs to be placed in the right place to ensure a clean kill.

A HV bullet hitting the deer in the same place would have being more likely to have killed it. Its simple a bullet is more efficient and effective at killing than a bow. And as I said all hunters want to use the the tool that will give them the best chance of killing the animal as humanely and quickly as possible don't they. ? If people are happy to hunt with a bow knowing that its less efficient at killing cleanly than a rifle that's up to them.

If people want to try and argue that a bow is as efficient as a rifle bullet than they are just wrong and are showing their lack of knowledge.

 

 

Rifle bullet 2800 fps. muzzle energy 2500 ft/lbs.

 

Bow 300 fps. muzzle energy 70 ft/lbs.

 

 

 

thats why bow hunters shoot at under 30 yards with 420 grains and you shoot at hundreds of yards with 160 grains

 

don't know of an air rifle that shoots 400+ grains?

The weight of the projectile means nothing without velocity.

 

PS I have deleted the photo as it seems to be disturbing some people.

Edited November 3, 2013 by ordnance

[casts_by_fly]

A HV bullet hitting the deer in the same place would have being more likely to have killed it. Its simple a bullet is more efficient and effective at killing than a bow. And as I said all hunters want to use the the tool that will give them the best chance of killing the animal as humanely and quickly as possible and if they are not they shouldn't be hunting. If people are happy to hunt with a bow knowing that its less efficient at killing cleanly than a rifle that's up to them.

If people want to try and argue that a bow is as efficient as a rifle bullet than they are just wrong and are showing their lack of knowledge.

 

 

Rifle bullet 2800 fps. muzzle energy 2500 ft/lbs.

 

Bow 300 fps. muzzle energy 70 ft/lbs.

 

 

 

The weight of the projectile means nothing without velocity. see above. I would have hoped hunters would know this without me explaining it.

Quite exactly the opposite when you want to talk about penetration. The mass of the projectile determines the penetration. For two objects with the same energy (slow and heavy vs light and fast) the object which derives its energy from mass will carry more momentum (and thus penetrate further) compared to the lighter object. It is very easy to prove both mathematically and logically. Ignoring the equal energy for a moment (in favor of the bullet), lets say i shoot my 17 hornet into a broadside deer. The bullet isn't coming out. It will penetrate a couple inches and stop. An arrow with 90% less kinetic energy will zip straight through. Weight is critical for penetration.

 

As i said above though, a bullet and an arrow kill in completely different ways. You cannot directly compare the numbers.

 

Rick

[casts_by_fly]

I didn't realise that an arrow would pass thru a large animal like a deer, what sort of poundage would the bow need for that to occur?

And what range could it be expected to do this at?

Fairly light with a sharp broadhead and efficient bow. 50 lb is enough with modern compounds to get a pass through under 30 yards consistently. Most guys shoot 60-70 lb draw weight and are pushing 400 grain arrows or so around 270 fps or more. You'll blow through a big red stag at 40+ yards with that setup.

 

Rick

[Vipa]

Would now be a good time to inject the fact about the huge sectional density exhibited by an arrow hence its ability to pierce many materials with frightening efficiency quite at odds with the kinetic energy it carries.

Agreed.. An Easton fmj arrow topped with a thunderhead 120gn broad head loosed from a Hoyt Vectrix 60lb bow at 25 yards PENETRATED the steel backstop of a certain .22 range that shall remain nameless. That same backstop showed absolutely no damage whatsoever from thousands upon thousands of .22 rounds and a fair few .17 HMR rounds hitting it..

 

If people would take the time to read the us army research into terminal ballistics conducted over many decades, they would find that the temporary wound cavity (the one that looks so amazing in slowmo footage of ballistic jelly) is actually not as traumatic to internal organs as it would appear.. Organ tissue is very elastic and returns to shape after it has been twisted and stretched, but the research shows that it is unlikely to rupture or tear unless it interacts directly with an object, in other words, hydrostatic shock is a bit of a myth..

 

The important effect is the permanent wound channel which causes the beast to bleed out... Exactly the same as an arrow... An arrow however, just does the job with a little finesse..

Edited November 3, 2013 by Vipa

[Vipa]

Well said VipaOn that point, what is the name of that u s army book, i was once told it was a fascinating reas but forgot the name and never get my hands on a copy

I've got all of the research and published papers downloaded somewhere.. I'll dig them out tomorrow.. They are all out there in the public domain though..

 

I was pointed to them during a discussion on whether hydrostatic shock was real... I was arguing blind it was and then had all the research thrust under my nose! Lol

[sirgoldalot]

so back to my main topic

 

Who amongst us would own a bow if bow hunting was legal in the uk?

 

 

 

oh and my nick name sirgoldalot ever thought where that came from?

Edited November 3, 2013 by sirgoldalot

[Vipa]

so back to my main topic

 

Who amongst us would own a bow if bow hunting was legal in the uk?

 

Already do... A Hoyt Vectrix! Lol

[ordnance]

 

If people would take the time to read the us army research into terminal ballistics conducted over many decades, they would find that the temporary wound cavity (the one that looks so amazing in slowmo footage of ballistic jelly) is actually not as traumatic to internal organs as it would appear.. Organ tissue is very elastic and returns to shape after it has been twisted and stretched, but the research shows that it is unlikely to rupture or tear unless it interacts directly with an object, in other words, hydrostatic shock is a bit of a myth..

I would disagree with I low velocity bullet leaves a temporary cavity. A high velocity bullet leaves a permanent cavity much larger than the diameter of the bullet. As seen in the large exit wound of a high velocity bullet.( Permanent cavity.)

 

 

The maximum diameter of the cavity occurs at the point at which the maximum rate of loss of kinetic energy occurs. This cavity will undulate for 5 to 10 msec before coming to rest as a( permanent track.) In high-velocity centerfire rifles, the expanding walls of the temporary cavity are capable of doing severe damage. Local pressures on the order of 100 to 200 atm may develop. This pressure may produce injuries to blood vessels, nerves, or organs that are a considerable distance from the path of the bullet. Fractures can occur even without direct contact between the bone and a rifle bullet.

 

 

It will penetrate a couple inches and stop. An arrow with 90% less kinetic energy will zip straight through. Weight is critical for penetration.

 

 

Fair point you need weight and velocity.

Edited November 4, 2013 by ordnance

[sirgoldalot]

Already do... A Hoyt Vectrix! Lol

A hoyt contender elite...@ 60lb

Edited November 4, 2013 by sirgoldalot

[Vipa]

so back to my main topic

 

Who amongst us would own a bow if bow hunting was legal in the uk?

 

 

 

oh and my nick name sirgoldalot ever thought where that came from?

Is it because you are really Brian May?

[sirgoldalot]

now your badgering me.....

[Vipa]

I would disagree with I low velocity bullet leaves a temporary cavity. A high velocity bullet leaves a permanent cavity much larger than the diameter of the bullet. As seen in the large exit wound of a high velocity bullet.( Permanent cavity.)

.

I think you are misunderstanding the terminology... The temporary wound cavity is the cavity created momentarily as the projectile enters the body sucking in lots of air and causing cavitation through the fluid in the organs.. The permanent wound channel is what is left after everything settles back down...

 

Thee are 2 main reasons for a larger exit hole than entry hole.. 1 is because the projectile expands... 7mm going in, 20mm coming out.. The 2nd is the large volume of air sucked into the body by the vacuum created behind the projectile, this huge amount of air, travelling very fast causes more trauma as it exits and so increases the exit wound.

 

If you are arguing with the facts, you are arguing against 40 or 50 years plus of scientific research conducted by the US and UK military, in the labs, in the field....... But hey.. What do they know eh? Obviously not as much as us!

[ordnance]

 

If you are arguing with the facts, you are arguing against 40 or 50 years plus of scientific research conducted by the US and UK military, in the labs, in the field....... But hey.. What do they know eh? Obviously not as much as us!

There seems to be different views on this even among experts from what I can see. Doctors military etc. Do you have any links to this research.

[Vipa]

There seems to be different views on this even among experts from what I can see. Doctors military etc. Do you have any links to this research.

Yup.. Will post tomorrow.. In bed on ipad ATM...

 

Here's an interesting little read though :-)

http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/myths.html#energy

 

More

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA526059

 

And more

http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/wwii/woundblstcs/default.htm

Edited November 4, 2013 by Vipa

[Ukdeer]

I'm not posting after this so look away now.

 

If you dont see there is a rather large difference in impact energy - I cant help you.

Have you seen bullets enter ballistic gel - bit different to a broadhead which cuts and maybe rotates a bit with very low energy imparted. The wound is different as a consequence and nobody shoots animals without ballistic/expanding tips if they want a quick humane kill. The two differ considerably I suggest. Hence my preference for the bullet. Just my personal view.

Bullets and broadheads cannot be compared as they are designed to cause blood loss in different ways. A broadhead can cut through bone ,tissue and organs at quite a low speed because they are razor sharp. A bullet is blunt compared to a broadhead and needs velocity to make it work, expand , fragment etc.As you could imagine a bullet travelling at 300 fps isn't going to work correctly.

Both bullets and broadheads are designed to cause blood loss this is what kills, unless the brain is destroyed.

So a deer hit with a broadhead runs as it is bleeding out.

Hit a deer with a rifle it could also run as it is bleeding out. But then people say things like its running dead,he dosen't know hes hit yet etc.

When a deer runs with an arrow in it ,some people say its dying slowly.and cruel why ?

So unless you kill the brain the deer is still alive untill blood preasure drops and the deer passes out and then continues to bleed out.

So if a deer drops instantley even with a neck shot, if you get to that deer within approx 8 to 10 seconds he will still have a eye reflex.becuse the brain isn't dead hes still bleeding out.

 

Have a read of this report

 

Shock efect by Sigbjorn Stokke Translated to English by Jim A Stensud

Norwegian Bowhunters Union

[Scully]

A HV bullet hitting the deer in the same place would have being more likely to have killed it.

 

For someone who is asking for links to disprove your claims, isn't the above something of an assumption? You don't know that for certain anymore than I do.

[mossy835]

i would have a go at it, i do it on the family farms in michigan.and get some nice ones but some times you have to track them down and it takes time, but you must try and find them.

[Kes]

So, you can shoot with a rifle bullet 40 grains (expanding) at 3600ft/s, kill a fox so effectively and quickly that the hydrostatic shock ends its life immediately by massive disruption of all its internal organs (engine room shot) the effect is devastating and the energy expended within the animal ensures its heart stops immediately and its brain a millisecond later.

We are to believe that the fox would be better off being shot with an arrow. Oh - do come on and stop trying to think everyone is gullible.

 

The bowhunters who are allowed to, shoot elephant, buffalo, gazelle, giraffe from blinds that are 40-60 yds away from a food source to get the animals close in. I find the whole process offensive and unsportsmanlike and much more likely to result in cruelty to the target than using a rifle. If you want to kill something big like a bear with a bow, I'm on the side of the horrified.

[Salop Matt]

Given a Chance I would bow hunt.

I have been tempted to give archery a go, i know 3 lads that have done it in one capacity or the other.

 

ATB

 

Matt

[Vipa]

So, you can shoot with a rifle bullet 40 grains (expanding) at 3600ft/s, kill a fox so effectively and quickly that the hydrostatic shock ends its life immediately by massive disruption of all its internal organs (engine room shot) the effect is devastating and the energy expended within the animal ensures its heart stops immediately and its brain a millisecond later.

 

 

Now the research that backs that up I would love to see... The only things that would do as you say are a direct and devastating hit to the heart, brain stem or neck (and even that may render it imobile and bleeding out but still alive!)

 

Do you shoot foxes stood right next to them whilst monitoring higher brain functions? how on earth do you know it dies instantly and it is brain dead within a milisecond? you don't and you can't..... and it isn't! just becasue it falls over doesn't make it dead and I guarantee... unless you connect with it's head, it is many seconds if not minutes until it is brain dead! If you think you are killing foxes instantly Kes..... I would suggest you are either blissfully ignorant or deluding yourself to make it 'ok' to do what you do!

 

Hydrostatic shock does not exist in that form, all the research backs up that fact, something I wasn't willing to accept until I read all the papers surrounding it!

 

If what you say were true, one would never ever get a runner when shooting deer as long as the bullet got into the boiler room... but guess what.... runners happen all the time..

 

Have a look at this and tell me where your hydrostatic shock was!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okn_OS9twok

Edited November 4, 2013 by Vipa

[Ukdeer]

So, you can shoot with a rifle bullet 40 grains (expanding) at 3600ft/s, kill a fox so effectively and quickly that the hydrostatic shock ends its life immediately by massive disruption of all its internal organs (engine room shot) the effect is devastating and the energy expended within the animal ensures its heart stops immediately and its brain a millisecond later.

We are to believe that the fox would be better off being shot with an arrow. Oh - do come on and stop trying to think everyone is gullible.

 

The bowhunters who are allowed to, shoot elephant, buffalo, gazelle, giraffe from blinds that are 40-60 yds away from a food source to get the animals close in. I find the whole process offensive and unsportsmanlike and much more likely to result in cruelty to the target than using a rifle. If you want to kill something big like a bear with a bow, I'm on the side of the horrified.

 

Could you give me the link to your above comment concerning the heart stopping immediatley and its brain stopping in milliseconds.

 

And if your comment is true why can an animal run after a perfect heart shot ,keeping its balance and reacting to obsticles in its way with no brain activity ?

 

looking forward to the link and your answer to the question.