Wanted "bird point" article feedback...

[D. Tiller]

As Billy wrote they were also used for warfare. The light weight poundage on most of these bows makes for the use of lighter arrows and points.

[Woodland Roamer]

Billy, I enjoyed your article, nice job. I believe you're right on that the Native Americans for the most part used bows of lighter draw weight than what most of us use today. I think your bow and arrows used in the article would be very effective on deer size game at close ranges.

Alan

[mitchman]

i thought it was great. i will use them for small game

[Pamunkey]

I  picked up a copy of PA the other day but just got around to reading the article.  I think it was very well done and provided concrete evidence for a theory people have had for some time (i.e. that "bird" points were really used on large game).  Since the adoption of the bow by the tribes here in VA, the points got progressively smaller over time.  I believe this is the case for a number of reasons- smaller points are easier to make and make better use of the lithic resource, the original, larger points were just smaller versions of dart points, and they came to the realization that large points were just not needed to take deer.  If anyone is interested, there's an interesting article in the April 2006 issue of "American Antiquity" entitled "Projectile point shape and durability: the effect of thickness: length".  It's got lots of good info for modern abos wanting to hunt with stone points.  Here's the abstract:
We describe an experiment that tests the hypothesis that projectile points with high thickness:length ratios are more durable than points with low thickness:length ratios. Fifty obsidian projectile points were manufactured to specific lengths, widths, and thicknesses. These were then fired into a deer carcass with a bow repeatedly until each point broke. None of the points were resharpened. The hardness of the material struck was a significant predictor of a point's durability. Controlling for this variable, however, we found that points with a high thickness:length ratio (> .121) were slightly albeit significantly more durable than those with a low ratio. No other attribute of size or shape was a significant predictor of durability

Will

[David Long]

Dang good info Little John. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Billy, you did a great job. There are still more questions than answers and that will always be the case. I see your effort kinda like Thor Heyerdahls Kon- tiki expedition. You demonstrated it really works, at least under the circumstances you tested. One of the important points to my way of thinking is that you used a sinew string. You tested a primitive package, not just the points.
Dave

[Traxx]

I finally got the chance to read the article.Good article Billy.Thanxx for takein the time and effort to do the test and write about it.Very informative.It also,imho,illustrates,why most early people,took to useing steel or iron points when availiable to them.

[Traxx]

Little Jon,
I would like to address and discuss your Buff hunting theories,but dont want to hijack this thread.I will post it in the hunting forum,if you are interested.

[Scowler]

I thought that the article was very informative.  I knew that light/moderate poundage self bows could kill deer.  However, I never thought about using bird points for deer size game until I read your article.  In retrospect it makes some sense.  If you have two arrows (one with a bird point and the other with a larger broadhead) and they are shot from the same bow, the arrow with the smaller arrowhead should penetrate farther since the same amount of energy is concentrated in a smaller area.  It would not be fare to compare field points to bird points, as far as trying to get maximum penetration on deer size game, since bird points are a true broadhead (just smallert than "normal" broadheads) and field points only have a sharp point and no cutting edges.  Again, a very interesting article.