penetration with stone points

[1/2primitive]

I would like to hunt deer, hogs and turkey this fall with stone points, but I'm not sure if my 47 lb bow, drawn 24" will have enough penetration with stone. I can't get my points very sharp, and I'm mainly modifying a few flakes, so they are not top quality, but hunting with stone is a thrill I want to experience! Do you think that the points will penetate enough to hunt? Or should I go with trade points which I can get razor sharp?
      Sean

[Kegan]

I'd go with the sharpest you have/can make. I've learned that one the hard way on a groundhog .

[duffontap]

Trade points, no question.  With hogs you might even want to buy good two-blade broadheads if your trade points are not awesome yet.  The best stone points can do amazing things but dull ones would not be suitable for big game. 

         J. D.

[Justin Snyder]

You really need sharp points.  A sharp one will go clear through a deer sized animal. But dull anything is not ethical.  I think the trade points would be great, as long as you get a good edge on them.  You can buy a sharpener, or you can just use a knife sharpener.  Justin

[1/2primitive]

Thanks guys, I knew I needed them to be sharp, I just didn't want to give up my chance to take game with stone.

If I got some good quality stone points, 7/8" wide, sharp, do you think, for deer........?
     Sean

[Hillbilly]

If I got some good quality stone points, 7/8" wide, sharp, do you think, for deer........?

Oh, definitely. Good quality sharp stone points are better than steel points for hunting, despite what the steel broadhead manufacturers union would have you believe. They get better penetration (proven in several tests), and if they hit a bone and the tip snaps, the newly broken edge is razor sharp. I shot a groundhog with a big, not-especially-sharp stone point last year, and it opened a hole through it that looked like I had shot it with a 7mm mag, it never knew what hit it. for deer-sized game, just make sure they're sharp, smooth with no big lumps, and hafted well.

[mullet]

I'm with Hillbilly,except if you can't get your points sharp ,try using just a spalled off flake of obsidian without touching up the edge.I wouldn't hesitate to use it on a deer or turkey.But a hog is a whole different ballgame.After the hunt in June for hogs I've changed my mine about low weight bows and stone points on foreshafts.When I go back in December I'll be shooting 70#,and thin points weighing 120 to 140 3 1/4" long x 1 1/4" wide.I want every shot to be a pass through.

[D. Tiller]

Suggestion, when making the stone points make the bulb of percusion the tip of the arrow point.

To sharpen raise the edge, then abraid and then presureflake from the raised edge. Do this in an up and down pattern from one side to the next. Makes a supper sharp edge. I was tought this by Steve Alleley. Makes a super sharp wavy edge!

D. Tiller

[duffontap]

Hillbilly,

I'm not disagreeing with you, but from what I've read those test have been performed with trade points vs. ultra-sharp, perfect glass points (not flint) into soft tissue.  If those are the tests you're referring to, I'm not sure that such test conditions provide proof that stone points are better big game points. 

Properly powered steel points on heavy arrows can chop through two elk or moose ribs and bury into a tree on the other side.  The way I see it is that even if steel points require bigger bows and arrows to achieve equal penetration, they offer more of a guarantee that the pass-through job will get done whether there is a rib shot or two ribs shot, or just soft tissue.  I think that's the main reason why most well-known traditional archers (from Pope to Hill to the current guys) have gone with 60-80 lb. bows, heavy arrows and steel points. 

If there were truly compelling proof for the superiority of stone points for big game hunting, I would think trophy hunters would be demanding stone points instead of the steel that is almost universally-favored.  Although, I love the idea of there being a conspiracy perpetuated by the Wensel twins!   Ha, ha.  Anyway, I love the tradition of stone points and I am jealous of those of you who can knap, but I'm not yet convinced of the 'fact' that stone points are better big-game heads.  (Open-minded though). 

            J. D.

[mullet]

J.D.,There was a show on the Discovery Channel not long ago about the cutting ability of Obsidian versus steel.It showed microscopic comparison of cuts made with each on artificial skin used by plastic surgeons for training.Stone made cleaner cuts hands down.The plastic surgeon said he would rather use obsidian the surgical steel.

[Hillbilly]

Man, I wonder how people survived for thousands of years all around the world without commercial broadheads? Poor guys- it's a wonder any of us are here today since our ancestors didn't have the opportunity to buy superior points off the shelf.   But then again, we live in a world where the more something costs, (or the flashier the ad is)  the better it automatically is.  The reason Pope, Young, and Hill didn't use stone points is because they were ate up with terminal unconditional Anglophilia. Actually, Pope was one of the ones who published a test showing that stone points (made by Ishi) penetrated into a deer carcass better than his steel hunting points. Ishi didn't have Magnus broadheads keeping him alive in the woods for all those years, but I bet he was eatin' venison. As for the glass points, I would consider a glass point to be inferior to good flint, basalt, or rhyolite.

[mullet]

    The only reason I'm going to bigger Stone points and a heavier bow on the next hog hunt at the Alexacarrie Plantation is because of the thorn thickets and possible rain like last time.I want to drop them in a short distance.Hogs don't fall over dead like deer unless you make a very tight heart shot.And then they will still run for the thickest cover they can find.I've also got some drill like points for close head shots.Basically ,I want them to fall down when I hit them or make two ,big, squirting holes. :)I lost 3 too many last time.

[Justin Snyder]

A chipped obsidian edge is the sharpest edge known to man.  It is quite often one molecule wide. I can assure you it will go through both sides of the ribcage of a pronghorn. Mine flaked a ship no more than 1/8" off the tip when it cut through the ribcage, leaving a fairly large scar in the bone. If you doubt the durability on bone, look at the pictures of Marc's deer that he hit in the head.  I have seen to many chisel point steel broadheads bend and deflect on a skull shot or penetrate and not get that penetration. Justin

[duffontap]

Hey Hillbilly, Justin, and Mullet,

Thanks for the replies.  I don't know if it's appropriate to call into question the superiority of stone on this site but the arguements that you are making in favor of stone do not answer the question 'is stone always better than steel for big game hunting?'  I'm not saying that steel is better, just that you need better arguements.

For example: 
Survival for thousands of years proves adequacy, not superiority to steel. 

With some exceptions, technological progress tends to be just that (even though it may be at the cost of beauty or soul). 

Sharper edges don't necessarily make better hunting points.  The edge has to be strong enough to hold while being slammed into the side of an animal.  Glass is used in surgery.  My uncle develops medical research equipment (Sutter Insturments) that uses laser-breakers to make hollow points so small they can inject liquid into a single human cell.  That's amazing, but that kind of sharpness doesn't necessarily translate to killing power.  (Most people don't know this but there are still barbers in North America who offer shaves with obsidian edges).

The tests conducted by Pope used his trade points against Ishi's stone points.  They were shot into a deer hide filled with livers.  Bones would have skewed the results of course.  While Pope did believe that Ishi's points penetrated soft tissue better than his points (30% better  ), he wasn't convinced that they were always superior as hunting heads.  Also note that Saxton Pope routinely achived penetration that today would be considered sub-par with his heads (i.e. steel heads have been improved since that particular test).

I read Marc's article and thought it was great, but again, it didn't prove the superiority of stone.  That same season my friend made a 35 yard shot at a cow elk with a 53# longbow and his arrow bounced off a limb and hit the thing in the skull.  Marc's stone point broke through the skull of a 85# deer and broke in the process.  My friend's steel broadhead (Eclipse, two blade) broke through the thick skull of an 11 year old 700# elk, scrambled the brain and slipped out in perfect condition.  Neither of these examples prove anything but adequacy.

The reason why I'm here is that I love this sport and the rich heritage we share.  But, I believe in intellectual honesty, too.  Primitive bows, arrows, and points are awesome and true technological advances to not take away from that.  Compound bows have insane force-draw curves but they do not make Ishi's bows, or English warbows, or Pigmy bows any less amazing within their context.  Our sport is one of heart and soul it doesn't have to have more killing power to be relevant.  It's a much-needed refuge from the comfort and ease of modern life.  I hunt primitive because I want to share in the struggle to live that people of the past delt with all the time.  It doesn't have to be more effective to be better.

        J. D.

[Justin Snyder]

To really compare stone to metal is near impossible.  I have seen brand name, chisel point broadheads not do what Marks point did.  It was shot from the latest greatest compound at a higher fps than marks bow will shoot. I have shot many broadheads back in my compound days that when I missed, broke worse than any of my obsidian have.  I have seen shoulder shots with steel that embedded in the bone and stopped, allowing the deer to run off.  I haven't seen enough stone shots to really compare to steel. I will say though that on bigger animals, buffalo or something with heavy ribs, the two blade will out penetrate the 4 because it will slip between the ribs.  I suspect that the same rules fallow on smaller, just not as obvious.  We would have to bring the bows down to minimum weight to test to see failure to test.  Not something I recommend.  Regardless, most broadheads on the market are 4 blade.  Why?  Not because it is better. Probably because it has more cutting area.  But the flipside is we have to increase power to get penetration.  If you cannot make a good shot you increase your odds of killing with a bad shot by increasing cutting edge.  If you can make a good shot, the stone will perform at least as well as the steel. I have seen stone pass through shoulder blade, and both sets of ribs without breaking. 

When in Rome, do as the Romans.  We use primitive bows, so why not use stone points.  Justin