Fritz: Of course personal experience also is of value but as you say yourself, peoples reports are skewed as they almost exclusively report sucess and remain quiet about failures. Therefore I would like to see good scientific studies on incapacitation times and wounding rates on big game before I can agree that bowhunting is as humane (or more humane) than conventional hunting with rifles. I do understand the difficulty undertaking good scientific studies on this but that is the case with most real life science.

Alf: Penetration can be calculated as sectional density x muzzle velocity (assuming non expanding projectiles). So SD is only half of the equation. Of course I know arrows have high SD but they alse have very low MV (comparatively speaking). My .416 bullets have a SD of .34 and a MV of 2400fps (MVxSD=816). Compound bows fire arrows .65 SD at round 300fps (MVxSD=195). From this it seems improbable that the arrow should penetrate deeper (from the theory if the data is about right one would predict less than 1/4th the penetration for the bow).

I am excluding shock theories (high velocity) since that is at best controversial now.

There may also be other factors than penetration per se that contribute to killing quickly. A broadhead arrow may for example lead to more blood being expelled from the animal (open wound channel) but again the animals bleed out internally as well and this may not be of importance (except for easier tracking blood trails in the case of wounding).

As for bows being more efficient, I don't understand this as being relevant since this is not an environmental discussion (less waste of energy). What is relevant is the ammount of energy delivered to the animal. And comparing bows to rifles, the energy delivered is miniscule no matter the range.

Also the fact that animals recover from arrow wounds does not mean that they have not been inflicted unneccesary pain. I would also think that a lot of such wounds lead to secondary complications like infections etc that increase suffering.

So as you see, the statement that arrows penetrate better is hard for me to understand. It seems strange that one expects non bow hunters to take such as statement at face value without question. I would be happy if this could be explained to me. My issue is not being right, but understanding this as well as possible...

This is going nowhere in a big hurry.
Norsk:
Why do you not come over and visit me? You are welcome to bring your rifle along. You can shoot an animal and then I shall shoot the same specie with my bow. To compare apples with apples, we both shoot for the shoulder.
You pay for what you shoot and I will pay for what I shoot. Let us keep to normal cheap plains game as that is what gets hunted the most.
After an in depth study by yourself in this way you will have first hand knowledge of what we are trying to explain. Then you do not need to rely on info that you get from Google etc.
If you decide to take me up on my offer I shall not make a cent profit. See it as research and not a freebee hunt or a hunt where I try and make some easy money.
You can have a go at Warthog, Impala, Duiker, Blue Wildebeest and Giraffe - I have to cull a few this year.
I guarantee you that you will have a new view on what a bow can do.

Norsk:

Good morning to you

Perhaps we are missing each other on this one..... mechanics is all about energy and this has nothing to do with the environment guns and bows, are machines, they operate by virtue of the conversion of energy into a usable tool to induce effect.

in the case of the gun we have a machine that converts energy locked up in a specific mass of energetic propellant by thermo chemical reaction into a gas that in turn exerts pressure on the base of a projectile with specific sectional density lodged in a rifled tube inducing that projectile to accelerate from rest to a desired velocity.

in the case of the bow the bow is a machine that stores energy done my the shooters muscle forces and converts that energy into forces that acclerate an arrow again with specific secional density to a desired velocity.

In this each can be compared against certain measurable efficiencies. Much as we do with motor vehicle engines when we compare them to each other.

I am fully aware of what factors have an effect on penetration and that it is far more than just sectional density.

However having said that the most important driver in penetration of ductile visco-elastic materials is sectional density.

( you will note that I am defining the target by it's mechanical behaviour, this is done specifically with intent ! because the mechanical nature of the target is as important, if not more so than the projectile parameters itself.)

Having said that the penetrating potential of a typical hunting arrow vs a conventional cup and core hunting bullet from a standard 30-06 for instance is quite astounding.

If we should look at the ballistic parameters of a standard bullet point tipped target arrow ( 8mm in diam ) shot from a compound bow into gelatine for instance we see this contra intuitive behaviour.

The target arrow at 90m will penetrate in excess of 30 inches in gelatine whilst the cup and core 30 cal bullet will not.

The "energy dump" of the cup and core is masssive whilst the arrow's is not yet when the actual wound volume is measured the depth of penetration vs the actual diameter of the cavity makes up for the arrow's apparent short coming in initial pre impact kinetic energy.

A target arrow with the following ballistic parameters fired from a bow with initial velocity of 235 fps and initial energy of 72.4 ft-pounds of energy will at maximum distance of 369 yards penetrate 1.8 inches into wood and about 12 inches into gelatine..... hardly enough to produce a fatal wound. That sadly is why arrows do not make good "hunting " missiles at long distances and bullets win hands down.

Bring the arrow down to what we commonly view as hunting distances the picture changes dramatically.

At 35 yards the same arrow will have a velocity of 227 fps, energy of 70.8 ft pounds and a energy density of 906; this same arrow will penetrate gelatine up to and beyond 30 inches.

A cup and core 220 gr 8mm bullet fired from a 8x68S at 40 m will do +/- 2750 fps with a energy of 3744 ft pounds of energy and a energy density of 48, 048 and yet this bullet will do no more than 20 inches in the gelatine.

When a broad head is added we see that the sectional density of the arrow is significantly altered because the contact reference area of the arrow is now significantly reduced.

This brings about a huge reduction in the denominator portion of the sectional density equation.

What I did not touch on was the science that underlies the ability to "cut" ie blade science.

here again we see that the behaviour of the target is at issue and this creates a dilemma.

The edges ground on blades and their ability to "cut" are very important. In the case of ductile visco-elastic materials a primary ground edge of no more than 10 deg is favoured whilst when bone needs to be penetrated the primary edge has to have an obtuseness of between 40 and 90 deg. This where the rubber hits to road in blade design.... we have two target materials that require opposites on blade edge grind angles to achieve the best penetration results.


As to "visible" blood, that does not enter into the killing equation..... whist it aids in the ability to track an animal it has nothing to do with lethality. it is the venting of a closed under pressure system that kills, not whether you can see the blood or not.

Hi Alf.
I for one could not agree more with your above mentioned statement but,,,,,,
Just like one can not expect a native Pygmy from the rain forest to understand the mechanics that makes the Space Shuttle fly into space without flapping its wings and then he does not even know what space is.
For the same reason Norsk will not understand how a bow kills. You can compare a bullet with an arrow but NOT when it comes to killing power. The two work in different ways.
The only way to make a believer out of someone is to show him. Then his perceptive facts will change in to realistic facts.

No offense meant Norsk but as I said. This argument is going nowhere in a big hurry.

This "Norsk" fellow is quite ignorant. His wound rate for bowhunting is just some anti- hunting rhetoric he's found somewhere on the internet. In fact, in 20 years of keeping stats of wounds with my company, the wound rate between rifle and bow is almost identical at less than 20%. Both tools are highly effective. Suffice it to say that the first shot on the hippo was excellent and had the party left the hippo alone and not pursued (thus increasing its adrenaline)the hippo would have been stone dead in about a minute.

Fritz:

Actually there is no difference in how a arrow kills vs a bullet, or someone who gets hit on the golf course by a golf ball or a spectator in the stands by a baseball.

A blow with a fist causes injury in exactly the same manner or rather mode as a bullet. The principles are exactly the same !

Malinowsky who coauthored many papers with Fackler actually wrote a very good article in the Journal of radiology on exactly this fact.

I would love to do the test but I can not afford the trip from Norway to Africa and don't have the time this year (7th member of the family just arrived). We would have to shoot a lot more than a few game to call this science however.

I understand arrows penetrate more soft tissue than one would be lead to believe based on their MVxSD. If the arrow penetrates 30 inches of gelatine and beyond at short range (<30 yards), that should be sufficient penetration for most big game (if the arrow only encounters muscle tissue).

I couldn't find gelatine tests for big game solids but expanding .308 bullets penetrate 25-30 inches of gelatine. Found a test of .416 rigby solids where they penetrated 71 inches of wood. So based on ALF's example bows don't penetrate better than rifles. I also wonder what happens to arrows when they hit hard tissue like bone. I would guess arrows would not penetrate wood very well, at least not 71 inches This is relevant for hard tissue (although bone is more dense and brittle).

Comparing bows to rifles, lets say you give equal hunting conditions at <30 yard range, bringing the riflehunter to the conservative bowhunting scenario. Do you really mean to say that bows are as reliable as rifles? Rifles hit a lot harder, penetrate as deep, if not deeper, penetrate hard tissue a lot better, have better inherent accuracy, are less influenced by environmental conditions like wind, follow up shots can be fired faster, and they are less sensitive to game movement (higher MV).

If one compares riflehunter shooting at game beyond 150 yards with bowhunters shooting at 30 yards, we are discussing the types of hunting and not the tools being used. I is also probable that most bowhunters going after big 5 in afraica are much better trained with thier weapon than the average recreational big game hunter draging along their old rifle (I know a lot of hunters that are terrible shots and never visit the range).

So it may be true that you guide ethical bowhunting at the same time as the tool (bow) is suboptimal. Maybe rifehunters have a lot to learn from bowhunters in this regard, but the point remains, why use the suboptimal tool in the first place.

My point is not that it is impossible to kill big 5 class game with a bow if one is a very good shot in the field, but that is more difficult and risky (with regards to wounding).

Why would you use an axe to chop wood is you can use a chain-saw. Why would you walk to the corner shop if you can fly with a helicopter. Why would you prepare your own food if there are restaurants where you can order your food from.

You are off the point here Norsk. Do not hijack your own topic. The point that I make and that you do not want to accept is that a bow does kill and it does so very well if used by a person that is trained to do so.

Why do we not use poison on our arrows? Then there would be zero wounds and everything would die. That would make a bow more effective than a rifle.

Why do you live in a country where everything freezes if you could live where the weather is always mild?

Your arguments makes perfect sense to someone that does not WANT to understand and does not WANT to be proven wrong.

You are absolutely correct in that bows wound much more than any bullet. Now what? So what? What do you want to do about that? If it were not for us "wounders" using a bow then you would have no one to educate. The thing is that I am an extremely slow learner and it will take me the rest of my natural life to learn what you say.

Are you up for the task to educate me for that long? If not, then do not even start.

I never had the illusion of changing anyones opinion on these forums. All people work hard to justify what they do and have done (for example bowhunting) before changing their opinion on the issue. The more effort invested in the issue (bowhunting) the less likely the opinion will change. So I have not been a missionary here.

Guess I'm as some have previously commented here on these forums just an ignorant idiot who lacks capacity to understand these things. Must have had a stroke after my PHD somewhere. But the fact is what it is, I just don't. Lets leave it at that.

Norsk:

Your choice of the 416 to compare function of a bullet vs a arrow in terms of "killing ability" actually reinforces my position regarding the relative efficiency of the arrow.

It also reinforces how poorly hunters in general understand the mechanics of wound ballistics ( and by this I do not necessarily include you)

The basic mechanics and principles of production of wounds in general is locked up in this comparison of bullet vs arrow. And it illustrates how efficient the arrow actually is.

It also reinforces the historical importance of the position of the bow and arrow as a tool of war or a tool to procure meat for food.

The impact of the use of the bow and arrow on warfare was huge ! there is ample evidence to support this notion as there is ample evidence to support the historical impact of the development of the modern bullet and cartridge in the early 1900's

By this I do not wish to create an impression that the arrow is "better" than a bullet, it is not, simply because if the arrow were better we would still be going to war armed with them

quote:

Originally posted by Norsk:
I never had the illusion of changing anyones opinion on these forums. All people work hard to justify what they do and have done (for example bowhunting) before changing their opinion on the issue. The more effort invested in the issue (bowhunting) the less likely the opinion will change. So I have not been a missionary here.

Guess I'm as some have previously commented here on these forums just an ignorant idiot who lacks capacity to understand these things. Must have had a stroke after my PHD somewhere. But the fact is what it is, I just don't. Lets leave it at that.

If you have a PHD then I totally give up. You are suppose to be more open to intelligence coming from actual experience than classroom lectures - Google and internet.

Fritz, if you wanted a little info on this hunt, I booked this client for the hunt. He was hunting in Lunga Luswishi, with Pro-Hunt Zambia, Richard Bell-Cross, in the Kafue. The hunter is from Colorado, and is a great guy, who loves to hunt with his long bow. A nice guy, and quite a feat in my opinion!

I believe you Aaron.
I have been hunting activly with a bow for 27 years and 21 after DG. I have seen to many times in my life what a bow can do. Even a trad bow. It is all about the archer and his mind set if he has the correct equipment.

quote:

Originally posted by Norsk:
The research stats I found on deer was very different. I do as I said believe humane bowhunting in general is possible if one is exceptionally skilled and diciplined. I believe the marigin for wounding is too great in normal hunting conditions however. Shooting sedate animals being fed at waterholes from a shed (saw a nonproficiant bowhunting woman shoot a Lion this way on animal planet) is very different from normal hunting imo. I do not pretend to know how have lead your hunts and it is possible that it is done a lot more conservatively for bowhunters (range, movement etc), but given equal hunting situations I have no reason to believe wounding rates for bows will be in the same ballpark as for rifles. The same goes for handguns... I just wonder why? One must be severely deluded to maintain that bows and handguns are as effective as rifles. Better if people just were honest and admitted they do it because it is "fun"..

Norsk, Norsk, Norsk. You have really stepped in it here. I take exception to your criticism. I am a rather avid handgun hunter, and properly loaded (this also applies to a rifle), they are very effective on big game -- and not just marginally so. One should gain some experience in the topic they so freely bash, prior to spewing opinions. I have found that those who choose to hunt with such specialized weapons such as bows, and handguns have a tendency to be more dedicated to their craft than the typical deer hunter here in the United States, who blows the dust off of his scoped rifle the day before the season opens.

I have just one question: What in the world are you doing in the bowhunting forum if you so object to their use in the game fields?

What a fantastic hunt that was! Thanks for sharing the link. Hunting with a longbow is so rewarding.

Let's try another direction.
Recent DNA studies have shown that hippos are related to whales! Therefore we should be using a tried and true weapon the whaling harpoon .Much better than arrows.An improvement on that would be to use a lubricant - Harpoon brand ale !