penetration with stone points

[D. Tiller]

JD The only reason we stopped using stone points is that stone is more delicate than steal. With an iron or some type of mettle point if it bends you just pound it back into shape and resharpen it. With stone it breaks and thats it she wrote no more. Stone is as sharp or sharper than steal and thats pretty much a given. When it hits a bone and breaks it just sharpens itself and makes a sharper edge.

Plus steal and any type of mettle points can be made much more quickly than stone points can be. Prety much steal points can be made from sheet mettle with just a snip or a punch and then some sharpenning in much less time than a single stone point can be made.

David T

[Justin Snyder]

Plus steal and any type of mettle points can be made much more quickly than stone points can be. Prety much steal points can be made from sheet mettle with just a snip or a punch and then some sharpenning in much less time than a single stone point can be made.

David T

Depends on the experience level.  And that is only if you buy the sheet metal.  Justin

[1/2primitive]

This is making for an interesting read, I enjoy seeing the pluses and minuses to the stone and metal. It gives me a more balanced view of the subject. Plus encouragement that I could take game with stone. 
      Sean

[D. Tiller]

Yep! Sean I know what ya mean. I too will be making stone tipped arrows to hunt with when I get a chance. I just don't get much chance to knapp anymore. Just too little time. Also one of the draw backs in our modern age for flintknapping, no time! If you ever get a chance talk with someone like Steve Allelie of the "Bowyers Bible" he makes these cool little bird points that are supper sharp by the technique I mentioned earlier. The little barbs he puts on them are really cool. He showed me how its done. He puts the notches one the point early before finnishing out the point and then comes back and finnisehes the barbs and the rest of the point.  There are a number of other knapper who do simmilar and make some really killer points. In fact that may be the only thing I will be making in the future. Just dont have much use for really big points.

David T

[Justin Snyder]

JD The only reason we stopped using stone points is that stone is more delicate than steal. With an iron or some type of mettle point if it bends you just pound it back into shape and resharpen it. With stone it breaks and thats it she wrote no more. Stone is as sharp or sharper than steal and thats pretty much a given. When it hits a bone and breaks it just sharpens itself and makes a sharper edge.
David T

The main reason most quit using stone is because of ADVERTISING.  Steel is not always more resilient. I have seen the vented blades on broadheads shatter when hitting bone.  Tempered steel can be quite brittle.  Stone is not always sharper. It is only sharper when sharpened good.  Justin

[duffontap]

Justin,

I totally agree that it's difficult to compare two materials that are so different.  The point I'm trying to make is that 99.9% of hunters use steel heads and the people who use stone heads passionatly and dogmatically insist that it's a 'fact' that stone is better.  But it's not a fact--it's clearly debatable.  I think it stands to reason that we as primitives should openly and honestly deal with the pros and cons of our equipment.  The truth is, it is harder to hunt primitive.  Our equipment requires more skill to master and offers fewer guarantees. 

Man, I've got to get to work.  I have more I want to say though.  I enjoy hearing everyone's perspective on stone. 

          J. D. Duff

[Justin Snyder]

Justin,

I totally agree that it's difficult to compare two materials that are so different.  The point I'm trying to make is that 99.9% of hunters use steel heads  

          J. D. Duff

Don't forget that 98.9% of hunters are stupid and LAZY.  You could sell them a $10,000 heat seaking point if you got the right guy to get on TV and market it. Tell them it will help them get a monster buck and they are lining up. They have thousands of dollars of equipment that they don't even know how to use correctly.  They don't even take the time to learn to shoot their compounds proficiently. The biggest reason the stone point is better is because of the dedication of the bowyer. It is like saying what constitutes a successful hunt.  If it isn't the journey, you are waisting your time.  In my ever so humble oppinion.  Justin

[jamie]

im likin this post. heres my 2 cents. the biggest misconception i hear all the time is getting a complete pass through. if you rely on blood to track then yes two holes are better than one. aboriginals had to be by nature amzing trackers. im no wheres near what they were but have found animals for other hunters that 4 guys walking a grid couldnt find and that was after they had stomped all over the place. not to sound wierd but its not just in the eyes its also in the spirit. every animal i have taken with stone has dropped fairly quickly and when opened up was nothing but blood soup on the inside. with the point still in the chest cavity there is a lot of damage going on after the shot. ive done my own penetration tests with stone and steel. as with anything there are good models and bad. i used a piece of moose rawhide that came from the hump on a moose for a target. a heavy shaft with a long triangular shaped stone point with no barbs always wins .  peace

[D. Tiller]

JD I'm talking more from the historical perspective when I talk about mettle points and stone. Most mettle points in history were quite bendable and easily bent and hammered back into shape. The modern stuff has way too high a carbon content on it. Takes a nice edge but when it hits something hard it shatters. The iron or soft steals the native americans and others from different times made their points from was a lot softer.

David T

[Hillbilly]

Stone points aren't necessarily "delicate" or easily breakable either, despite the common misconception. Obsidian is brittle and easily broken, but people who are used to obsidian, dacite and such and have never worked with rhyolite, quartzite, good basalt or raw Texas flint don't realize just how durable a stone point can be. All these get sharp as the dickens too. I've seen a large rhyolite blade being used as throwing knife, stuck deep into trees and boards time and time again without breaking. James Parker once had a couple atlatl darts at a shoot that had nice thin rhyolite stemmed points hafted on them. Several of us played with them all weekend, throwing them over and over and sticking them into everything imaginable, and I don't think we ever broke either of them.

[duffontap]

Those are all some good posts.  Flint, quartz and other stone is much different from glass.  The advantage of glass is of course the 'sharper than steel' thing.  We all agree that points are only as sharp as you get them.  Glass has the potential for the sharpest edge by far but steel can be a lot sharper than most of us bother to get them.  I don't know how sharp flint can get but I don't think it has the capacity for a steel-sharp edge. 

Justin is right too.  People are lazy.  Tell a guy who only shoots his bow during hunting season that he has to carefully haft a stone point on with sinew and he's already lost interest.  There's a practical side to these things too.  A taper tool and hot glue are major labor savers.  But, they also offer more hope of a correctly centered head and good flight.  Stone-tipped arrows must be evaluated on a case by case basis. 

125 grains of steel or stone just doesn't seem to be enough for any guarantee against breakage or bending.  I'm pretty comfortable shooting a Zwikey Eskimo at an Elk because I know that they have taken thousands of huge animals without failure.  But, I had one practically bounce off the shoulder blade of a nice bull Elk last year and I nearly left my bow in the woods.  If I were a confident flintnapper I would be glad to use large flint heads on Elk.  Obsidian just doesn't seem up to the task for Elk or Moose to me. 

Justin, you said 'when in Rome...'  My hunting equipment doesn't follow ancient European or Native American design so a stone point would not 'match' so to speak.  That wouldn't keep me from using them if I knew how to make them well enough. 

                 J. D.

[Hillbilly]

JD, yep, flint, rhyolite, and especially quartz will break to a razor-sharp edge (at least the better grades of them, some of the grainier stuff won't get razor sharp.) I don't know how many times I've been knapping these materials and cut myself badly, but the flake that did it was so sharp that I didn't even realize I was cut until blood started dripping off my hand. I totally agree with your thoughts that no matter what point material you're hunting with, you should take the time and effort to get it as sharp as you possibly can before you shoot it at an animal. Sharpness isn't the only determining factor-point size and shape, durability, the way it's hafted, shaft and point weight all affect how a point will perform, but sharpness sure helps.

[DanaM]

I have never used stone points but it seems to me that there really isn't much differeance in killing power between
well crafted stone or metal points. Native Americans used stone until it was replaced by metal. Why? because it was as
effective and required less work to make and was more durable. IMHO the lethalness of an arrow is determined by
shot placement rather than what its made of.

[Justin Snyder]

IMHO the lethalness of an arrow is determined by
shot placement rather than what its made of.

So your saying that a well placed shot with a field point is better than a gut shot with a 7mm mag.  HMMMM  I guess I cant argue with that. 

JD, I will let you know how obsidian does on elk this fall. I have complete confidence.  If I was a real napper I would make some points from real stone.  As it is, I just use the little kid rock.    Justin

[Coo-wah-chobee]

            "Obsidian just dosent seem to be up to the task for Elk or Moose for me." Now thats really interestin' ta me J.D. I wonder have ya ever hunted hawgs ?..........bob