Points too light?

[Fred Arnold]

George, don't you be hanging those on no wind chimes, I've got plenty of beeswax left.

[gstoneberg]

That reminds me, your wax arrived today.  Thanks.  But, I don't do wind chimes, my better half does.  I have to hide the points I want to keep.  She assumes that anything laying around is fair game (and she's right).

George

[jamie]

George my quiver is filled with arrows that have points ranging in weight from 40-100 gr.

[half eye]

I have mostly all small heads also....In the bird point size range and they fly really well and penetrate very nicely even with my 3/8" dia. hardwood shafts. Got a couple of your smaller types and hopefully will show you how they do on deer.
rich

[Tower]

Very nice points George.

[Stringman]

This has got me thinking... (Not always a safe activity!) I shoot big bodied and wide 145's. I wonder if I should step down to about 100 grn 7/8" points?!? Seems that my previous stone killed deer were with much smaller heads.

Scott

[gstoneberg]

I can't speak from experience yet, but the physics would suggest you'll get maximum penetration with the narrowest, 3:1 ratio head you can make (that's legal).  Too bad I can't make them long enough to be 3:1.

George

[Deo]

From what i have seen the bird points have better penentration then the big heavier points. There are two great videos on you tube that show bird point penetration test, one is from billy and i believe he was using a 35# bow from about ten yards and getting about 14 inches of penetration on an acutuall deer.

the way i see it is that the lighter smaller heads need less arrow mass for deep penetration then the wider or longer arrow heads. example is if you have a 500 grain shaft pushing a 50 grain arrow head vs a 500 grain shaft pushing a 145 grain arrow shaft. I believe the physics will show the arrow with the lighter head will penetrate better because less mass is needed behind the point. Hope that makes since.

What do you all think? opinions?

[gstoneberg]

Deo, like all things there are lots of factors, but I also think the smaller point will penetrate better, everything else being equal.  But, not for the same reason.  Here's the physics, (borrowed from the background of the natal study). 

A triangle point can be reduced to a pair of inclined planes.  Forcing half a triangle point into something is like pushing a box up a ramp.  So, comparing a 7/8" wide head to a 1 1/4" wide head both the same length is like laying a 8' ramp up to a 2' high truck bumper and pushing a box up.  Then putting the same ramp up to the 3' truck bed and pushing the box up there.  The additional height makes it harder.  So the narrower head has less resistance and penetrates better (all else being equal).  Now, for the same height, the longer the ramp, the easier the job.  So, the little short 1" points, maybe an inch and a quarter long I've making lately are not going to penetrate as well as a 2" long 1" wide head and if I could make a 3" long, 1" wide head it would penetrate even better.  Of course, the sharpness of the point matters a lot but if I made both points they're likely to be about the same.

There is also a component for the drag on the shaft and head due to thickness of the head, diameter of the shaft and the design of the point/shaft juncture.  I don't believe the thickness of the head has nearly as much to do with that drag as how well the shaft is tapered into the point on the sides.  So we need to be careful to taper the end of the shaft, particularly to make it smooth on the outside of the shaft into the point.

I personally don't think the weight of the point matters much except as it influences the width and length of the point and the thickness impacts what diameter of shaft the point will fit into.

Dang, was that verbose.  Sorry.

George

[Deo]

I do believe their are many factors as with good science there always is. could there be a potentil problem with making a stone point to long, thus making it more prone to breakage. so by making the point a bit smaller it may potentially be a little more stout, just a thought, i also know that certain designs can take more abuse then others. thanks for the insight i have been wondering about bird point penetration versus bigger points.

I would like to see a test between bird points and stone points with a 3:1 ratio with. when i get good enough at knappin i will give it a shot.

[gstoneberg]

Hey Deo, sure a longer point could break.  But, even a broken flint point is typically still sharp, though it's design may be compromised.  So far this is all just physics for me and I know that sometimes reality goes where logic and math don't.  That's why I love Billy's youtube tests.  No substitute for real world experience.  I hope to do my own tests on live game this season.  I'm not good enough to do a 3:1 flint head, but most of mine that are on arrows are in the 2:1 range.  They're over 1" wide though.  I might be smarter to do 7/8", I have a head that size ready and an arrow for it almost finished.

George

[Deo]

Good luck gstoneberg, and would like to know about the results.

[billy]

I really don't worry about the weight of my stone points.  When I make my cane arrows I insert a dogwood or hickory foreshaft, and that gives me the forward weight I need.  Then I mount rather small, thin points that are pretty light, some weighing as much as 50 grains....but the reed arrows that are matched to my 40 lb bow are tipped with TINY points....some weigh only 10-15 grains!  But I tell ya I've killed the hell out of animals with those little points.  It's all about shot placement.....

[matte]

Your heads are perfect for cane shafts shot from a self bow,that is if the bow is properly made and of average poundage, around 55#or so.I have weighed many artifacts and have found 80 to 110 grains to be the average. atlatels points are quite a bit heavier and are often mistaken for arrowpoints used in a bows.This can confuse those new to the primitive way. Your points are ideal for hunting whatever game you choose to pursue.I also like the way you make your heads, simple but effected. Very nice working points!   Matt

[Sambone]

Those are some fine looking points. I hope to get there soon.