Crossbow Nation banner

21 - 40 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,364 Posts
Which takes us back to a 400 gn universal fps standard that should be mandated for all oem specs.
Of course ... A ridiculous standard, thought up by someone who seemingly knows nothing about the technology of the bowyer.
That said... You are on the right track. A weight standard,
Tha dah!
Been done 50 years ago. ..... A.M.O.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,549 Posts
Your chance to back up your mouth is now,muffin. Lay it all out. The crossbow world according to Lever action. Teach us all ....
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
8,450 Posts
Of course ... A ridiculous standard, thought up by someone who seemingly knows nothing about the technology of the bowyer.
That said... You are on the right track. A weight standard,
Tha dah!
Been done 50 years ago. ..... A.M.O.
Curious … "why ridiculous?" Seems logical to me. 400gr is very popular and seems accepted by most as a practical hunting weight arrow. All crossbowers could quickly absorb precisely what the performance perameters were in real life terms; and readily compare crossbows. Combined with it also seems acceptable to all the manufacturers as above their minimum safe arrow weight. Strikes me as a lot better than verticals IBO using a 70" draw length that most archers could never reach.

What's your suggestion for arrow weight Lever?
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
8,450 Posts
I finally solved my dilemma of two steps forward then one step backward. Turn around and walk backwards!
Now … you gotta take two steps backwards to get anywhere...lol ;)
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
8,450 Posts

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
11,035 Posts
That’s why I say “been there- done that”. Been going in circles all my life. I must like it :giggle:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,364 Posts
Curious … "why ridiculous?" Seems logical to me. 400gr is very popular and seems accepted by most as a practical hunting weight arrow. All crossbowers could quickly absorb precisely what the performance perameters were in real life terms; and readily compare crossbows. Combined with it also seems acceptable to all the manufacturers as above their minimum safe arrow weight. Strikes me as a lot better than verticals IBO using a 70" draw length that most archers could never reach.

What's your suggestion for arrow weight Lever?
The 400 grain ignores bow draw weight. A `150# bow is never going to see the stresses of a 250# bow. Therefore, an arrow weight standard doesnt address what happens across the board. I.B.O & A.M.O. uses grains per pound for a reason.
You also bring up another good point about draw length.
Not having a standard of draw length is the same as having no weight standard.

No bowyer in this world has ever attempted a build without this knowledge and with that fact... There can be no 1 standard for arrow weight being used as a measure for performance or durability in the crossbow world, without all aspects being considered.
The reason 30 is used is because it's the max normal (with vertical) and anything spec'd at that standard will out perform (durability) below that mark and it also reflects maximums available for that standard.

Grains per pound is the only standard which can move across the scale without ill effect as to result. G.P.P. was always seen in a split between compound and recurve (if you will) due to the differences between the two designs. One weight did not reflect durability standards across the two spectrum. This is likely not the case (needing to be addressed) with crossbows, as a standard of a 150 spine would cover pretty much anything out there today at a 20" standard. IMO
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
8,450 Posts
30" and 350gr... ignore draw weight too. A manufacturer makes 150lb, 175lb and 300lb crossbows, a standard 400gr arrow gives the consumer a direct comparison of the energy available to him/her. IF, the 150lb bow can shoot a 300gr arrow, just so state it and let the buyer do the math or list the "benefit" in the specifications. I think you're making it more complicated than it has to be. A 400gr standard would CERTAINLY be infinitely better than what we're dealing with now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,364 Posts
Your chance to back up your mouth is now,muffin. Lay it all out. The crossbow world according to Lever action. Teach us all ....
I fear you have no background, with which I could educate you. Like attempting to educate a child on the principles of nuclear fission. Everything is going to go over your head, as you have no intellect/education. Not to late though! Educate yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,549 Posts
Your still just running off at the mouth, as usual. You have been invited to expound upon all your knowledge and yet you still prefer to just throw out snide remarks as usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,268 Posts
Lever, Don't get personal walk the walk. If it's legit speak truth to power. We all have been around the block once or twice. ;)

Me, I'm a damned yankee now a Alabama red neck new at this sport that's been in the woods suffering from some nasty poison ivy this week. All this talk........ I just aim, shoot and kill if I get lucky enough. The rest of you are a bunch of crazy ole' men and I like it!

I did laugh at that three "left" comment. LMAO. Sounds like a whiskey chaser to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,364 Posts
30" and 350gr... ignore draw weight too. A manufacturer makes 150lb, 175lb and 300lb crossbows, a standard 400gr arrow gives the consumer a direct comparison of the energy available to him/her. IF, the 150lb bow can shoot a 300gr arrow, just so state it and let the buyer do the math or list the "benefit" in the specifications. I think you're making it more complicated than it has to be. A 400gr standard would CERTAINLY be infinitely better than what we're dealing with now.
There is no 350/30" standard. There is an I.B.O. standard of 5 g.p.p which comes to be 350 @70# but 350 is not the standard. using a single arrow weight ignores the bows weight.
The I.B.O. standard is also a performance standard only and ignores (to some degree) the function for construction and use, which the A.M.O standard addresses, at a higher g.p.p. standard.

Ignoring the g.p.p. rule and using a set weight skews results between bows and gives false results as to outcomes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,364 Posts
Lever, Don't get personal walk the walk. If it's legit speak truth to power. We all have been around the block once or twice. ;)

Me, I'm a damned yankee now a Alabama red neck new at this sport that's been in the woods suffering from some nasty poison ivy this week. All this talk........ I just aim, shoot and kill if I get lucky enough. The rest of you are a bunch of crazy ole' men and I like it!

I did laugh at that three "left" comment. LMAO. Sounds like a whiskey chaser to me.
That's what I have been doing. He is just to ignorant to understand what I have been saying. He is also a rude crap talking adolescent. Instead of listening, he attacks me because I actually have an educated opinion and he obviously does not.
sad little man with a chip on his shoulder.

Duke and I are conversing without being demeaning. He can't manage that because he is an empty well and he hates that fact.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
8,450 Posts
The whole point … is to ignore the bow weight and put all crossbows on equal footing. If a very efficient 130lb limb Scorpyd shoots a 400gr arrow at 400fps and it takes Excalibur putting 320lb limbs on a bow to get 400fps and a Mission 175lb limbs the conclusions are all crystal clear to the consumer. Taken another way, a Scorpyd shoots a 400gr arrow at 480fps, Excalibur at 400fps, and Mission at 420fps; simple comparison. You instantly know the order from the performance perspective. You can continue on to compare the other characteristics of the 3 crossbows according to your own buying philosophy and shooting requirements. Maybe you're in need of super light, or backward looking limbs, quiet, narrow, short, or whatever. But the one thing you do know is how fast, flat and powerful the arrow will fly out of each of them side by side. There is no interpretation, equation or calculation involved trying to get a direct performance comparison.

That said, if the Excalibur can safely shoot a 350gr/450fps arrow and/or the Mission can shoot a 375gr/450 arrow, they can simply point that out in their advertising, or their specifications as an option. Somewhat like Ten Point does by providing their admirable 3 different weight arrow performance data.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,364 Posts
The whole point … is to ignore the bow weight and put all crossbows on equal footing. If a very efficient 130lb limb Scorpyd shoots a 400gr arrow at 400fps and it takes Excalibur putting 320lb limbs on a bow to get 400fps and a Mission 175lb limbs the conclusions are all crystal clear to the consumer. Taken another way, a Scorpyd shoots a 400gr arrow at 480fps, Excalibur at 400fps, and Mission at 420fps; simple comparison. You instantly know the order from the performance perspective.
This is what lead to the destruction of high country archery. They focused only on speed and advertised to their customers only speed. Speed derived with 3.3g.p.i. arrows, which they sold for their bows. While the speed ratings were true enough (with those arrows) customers paid a high price for following that path, as did the company.
Something akin to what we are seeing with Excal today.
While a 400 grain arrow out of the 130# Scorpyd follows the rules of g.p.p., the rule is totally ignored by the 320# Excalibur.
This leaves one customer well cared for and the other risking almost certain failure, all because a fixed weight standard was used.
This is the problem with looking only at speed. The neophyte is lead to the slaughter by the manufacturer, who only cares (ultimately) about sales. The crossbow makers need to be held to the same standard as the vertical bow manufacturers, for the sake of the community and the industry. This isn't a sentiment that is held by only myself, as the I.B.O. & A.M.O. standards were adopted for just such reason.



.... But the one thing you do know is how fast, flat and powerful the arrow will fly out of each of them side by side. There is no interpretation, equation or calculation involved trying to get a direct performance comparison.
Well thats not entirely true. When looking at the design standard, it's not at all comparable. When using an A.M.O. standard for non-compound and I.B.O. for compounds, the M.O. differential could easily side with the non-recurve bow, in some cases. Using the two previously mentioned bows (scorpyd/Excal) there is a potential 200 grain differential in the arrow weight. While speed will indeed be lesser with the excal, the M.O. will also likely be higher than the Scorpyd.
***I have not actually run the estimated numbers.... I am simply using as an example.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
8,450 Posts
Lever … one thing I know for sure … K.I.S.S. or it doesn't work.

For example, my partners and I running a Deer Management Program projected that it would be hard to keep fannies in the trees once the program matured and reached the goals of reduced herd size. The question was "how do we motivate hunters to still contribute to the landowner's herd control when they're going to see one or two deer a hunt instead of 20 deer a day?" RACKS! Our management goal was to use racks as an inducement or reward for participation. Therefore we had to protect some of them. I argued that the system has to be extremely simple. "A hunter isn't allowed to shoot anything more than a 6pt unless he has killed his quota of does/anterless." My partner, reader of all the latest & greatest science & wildlife biologist studies, wanted aging on the hoof. It was a disaster. Half the participants were afraid to shoot any buck for fear of incurring penalties from making a mistake and half became disheartened and dropped their participation. The following year we went to "count the points of the rack" ...lol

It has to be simple. It's EXACTLY why nobody gives two hoots about momentum data. Nobody sees the difference between a 0.738068 arrow and a 0.714950. Yet they readily digest the difference between a 408gr/408fps/151ke and a 375gr/430fps/154ke arrow and how it effects their hunting/shooting philosophy. 151ke is easily compared to 154ke while 0.738068 vs 0.714950??? You'll see kinetic energy data, but NEVER momentum data because momentum data doesn't register to a normal person. A physics professor or a guy building a particle accelerator maybe...lol
Not to go down the heavy arrow/momentum/penetration rabbit hole again and risk drawing out a ridiculous hypothetical fringe doctoral sermon, crossbows all have 3 to 7 times the momentum necessary to kill a deer. So again, the momentum number has almost no use. Kinetic energy is much easier for a shooter to use to apportion that available energy to a combination of speed/flat and/or power/penetration according to his own dictates and convictions. That's a fairly sophisticated shooter at that! I'd bet 75% of the average hunters don't even know, digest, see or care about the kinetic energy number. They only notice the speed of the crossbow. A fair 400gr for every crossbow standard meets the need of the buying public. The sophisticated, and super-sophisticated buyers can pore over kinetic energy and momentum data if they so choose. :)
182213
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moon
21 - 40 of 44 Posts
Top