Huskemaw optics and the Best of the west clowns

[lefty-Cunuck]

Here is a table of the loss in speed measured over distance....

- 6 feet (290, 290, 291).....avg. 290.3 fps
- 10 yards (286, 286) .......avg. 286 fps (loss of 4.3 fps)
- 20 yards (279, 280) .......avg. 279.5 fps (loss of 10.8 fps)
- 30 yards (272, 274) .......avg. 273 fps (loss of 17.3 fps)
- 40 yards (266, 266) .......avg. 266 fps (loss of 24.3 fps)

The time of flight is not drastically different than the numbers I first roughly calculated.

So at 40 yards the TOF is still probably between 0.4 and 0.48 seconds which makes my initial comparison still valid.....you talk about the noise of the bow and such, modern bows are quite quiet and quick. I figure you probably have experience with a xbow....now you want to talk about loud!

LC

 

[Tempest]

Most bullets do lose velocity...you hear about some cartridges on here occasionally that have no drop at 400 yards but all of mine do shed velocity as they travel through the air. I was just pointing out the flaw in a calculation for an arrow where this loss of velocity was not factored in. I bet if you went back and read it again you'd see that .

So why didn't you state that as well. What I read was that your explanation applies to an arrow to forward your position but excluding that same fact strengthens your position on a bullet.

What I got from the post you replied to was that "basically" a 40 yard shoot with a bow is equivalent "roughly" with a 400 yard shot with a rifle (travel time wise). Now if you stretch that out to a "longer range" definition, an 800 yard shoot with a rifle would "roughly" equate to an 80 yard shot with a bow (i know there is a lot more that goes into it). I think most people would consider that both are shots that need to be considered very carefully and that pose a great deal of built in error. Errors that are almost impossible to correct for that can lead to bad things. Yet we sit here and say "to each their own" when we know that there are many among us that haven't got a clue as to what it takes to pull off either of those shots. And if it is not obvious to some that these types of shows cater partly to a crowd that thinks these gizmos will instantly make them something they are not then they are delusional.

 

[sheephunter]

So why didn't you state that as well. .

I guess because I was giving people credit for being intelligent enough to get it.

What you "got" out of my post was totally wrong. I wasn't making a case for or against bullets or arrows. I was making a case for the fact that an animal "could" move after the shot in the case of either.....in the case of the arrow it is quite likely higher because of long flight times and sound vs just long flight time for the bullet. I was also saying that people with an understanding of animal behaviour and experience in the field could do a lot to examine these conditions and do a lot to mitigate the chance of the animal moving...with either bow or rifle. There were a few that seemed to believe this issue was unique to long-range rifle shooting and that's clearly not the case to anyone that has hunted a lot with both weapons. I'm sure you would agree.

 

[Kelly Timoffee]

It is the hunter you have to worry about, Taco Time can be quite loud!

Here is a table of the loss in speed measured over distance....

- 6 feet (290, 290, 291).....avg. 290.3 fps
- 10 yards (286, 286) .......avg. 286 fps (loss of 4.3 fps)
- 20 yards (279, 280) .......avg. 279.5 fps (loss of 10.8 fps)
- 30 yards (272, 274) .......avg. 273 fps (loss of 17.3 fps)
- 40 yards (266, 266) .......avg. 266 fps (loss of 24.3 fps)

The time of flight is not drastically different than the numbers I first roughly calculated.

So at 40 yards the TOF is still probably between 0.4 and 0.48 seconds which makes my initial comparison still valid.....you talk about the noise of the bow and such, modern bows are quite quiet and quick. I figure you probably have experience with a xbow....now you want to talk about loud!

LC

 

[patty59]

You need look no further than the title of this thread to see how inaccurate that statement is.

Or all of your posts

 

[Tempest]

sheep, I’m quite sure you were the one who asked “how fast an arrow travels” and lefty replied and included the comparison to a bullet with a similar flight time. I must be missing something in your reply to Lefty or maybe you didn’t read all of his post. I’m not sure if Lefty’s post had some other cryptic message in it that I missed but I really am confused how your comment of decreasing velocity has any bearing on his simple straight forward calculations. By your reply you seem to think that the numbers he’s given for arrow flight times are an improper comparison to the flight times he’s given for the bullet.

 

[Brian46]

I have had white tail deer jump the string on a less than 30yd shot, I have yet to have an animal jump the bullet even at over twenty times that distance. Just my experience

 

[sheephunter]

sheep, I’m quite sure you were the one who asked “how fast an arrow travels” and lefty replied and included the comparison to a bullet with a similar flight time. I must be missing something in your reply to Lefty or maybe you didn’t read all of his post. I’m not sure if Lefty’s post had some other cryptic message in it that I missed but I really am confused how your comment of decreasing velocity has any bearing on his simple straight forward calculations. By your reply you seem to think that the numbers he’s given for arrow flight times are an improper comparison to the flight times he’s given for the bullet.

No I think it's you that misread. I was never comparing the two other than in the fact that an animal "could" move in either case. In regards to Lefty, I was just pointing out that his initial calculation on the TOF of the arrow was incorrect because it did not include the fact that the arrow shed velocity as it travelled. They obviously do. He was the one that made the comparison between the two...not me...but his formula for the TOF of the arrow was flawed as he admitted and corrected later. You do see the flaw right? An arrow that leaves the bow at 300fps does not strike the 40 yard target at 300fps. Physics plays a role.

 

[lefty-Cunuck]

Pretty much the same can be said for archery.....if we compare time of flight of projectiles yet no one seems to criticize archers for shooting at game that have sufficient time to move...plus you have the added sound with archery to further cause movement....interesting.

I think you first brought in the archery comparison prior to me posting in this thread....back at post #202

And then again in post#212

I wasn't talking long range...I was talking similar flight times of the projectiles. How long does it take your arrow to fly 40 yards?

So I was trying to address your question above.

LC

 

[1899]

Not really...I just hate seeing hunters slag hunters...especially when in reality, all hunters live in glass houses

So hunters should support all other hunters just because they are in the same broad group? In your view does the fact that someone is a hunter make them beyond reproach? Do you simply say: "If it is legal then it is ok"?

 

[sheephunter]

I think you first brought in the archery comparison prior to me posting in this thread....back at post #202

And then again in post#212



So I was trying to address your question above.

LC

Fine, if it's important to you...TOF of an arrow at 40 yards is similar to that of a bullet at 500 yards....now let's factor in that the arrow travels at less than the speed of sound and the bullet travels at greater than the speed of sound and agree that in both cases the animal could move....my original point. I would hope that you agree that the possible movement of an animal is not unique to long range shooting even if we double the range of the bullet.

 

[sheephunter]

So hunters should support all other hunters just because they are in the same broad group? In your view does the fact that someone is a hunter make them beyond reproach? Do you simply say: "If it is legal then it is ok"?

No I don't say that at all and I agree that productive discussion of the facts is...well productive. Do you really think that the title of this thread was productive or did it lean more to the side of slagging. It's unfortunate that people with few facts compensate with personal insults as there is undoubtedly some productive and respectful discussion to be had. Sadly we rarely see it in the hunting community. From what I've seen of your posts on here, you are indeed interested in productive discussion of the facts...others not so much perhaps.

 

[canadian hunter312]

I got turned off by a few episodes where they drove across the prairies with a suburban until they spotted an animal and then get out and built their bench rest beside the truck and shot from there. Not much different than our road hunters driving around everyones fields and shooting from the truck. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

Yep

Not really...I just hate seeing hunters slag hunters...especially when in reality, all hunters live in glass houses

There's a difference between hunters slagging hunters and hunters slagging shooters who claim to be hunters. See above


What these guys do requires plenty of shooting skills, but zero hunting skills. I'd call it a shooting show, not a hunting show...

 

[sheephunter]

Yep




There's a difference between hunters slagging hunters and hunters slagging shooters who claim to be hunters. See above


...

Perhaps in your mind but I doubt so much in the minds of anti and non hunters. One need not look too far to see where these comments have come back to bite hunters in the butt.

 

[lefty-Cunuck]

No not particularly important....a question was asked and I attempted to answer it sufficiently, with comparison. It was your question...and your point initially....just trying to be helpful.

LC

 

[canadian hunter312]

These guys are killing critters...lots of them to make a 26-week series.

I wonder how many are they wounding and not recovering in the process of making that 26 week series?

Wounding an animal at 900 yards when it will take you over an hour just to get to the spot where the animal was standing doesn't exactly leave an opportunity to finish off the animal quickly or humanely, does it?

 

[sheephunter]

No not particularly important....a question was asked and I attempted to answer it sufficiently, with comparison. It was your question...and your point initially....just trying to be helpful.

LC

The question was somewhat rhetorical but it did result in some useful input from you for sure. I just hope the fact that animals possibly moving at the shot was not something unique to long-range shooting didn't get lost in the discussion...that was the only point I was making.

 

[1899]

No I don't say that at all and I agree that productive discussion of the facts is...well productive. Do you really think that the title of this thread was productive or did it lean more to the side of slagging. It's unfortunate that people with few facts compensate with personal insults as there is undoubtedly some productive and respectful discussion to be had. Sadly we rarely see it in the hunting community.

No, there is obviously a bias in the title. The question ought to be: "is this bias justifiable?" Name calling, insults etc aside, I believe there is a valid reason to disaprove of what these people are doing. And in my view what they are doing is increasing the risk of wounding game by specifically looking to make long shots for the purpose of selling/promoting a product or products. It matters not one iota what other people do, other peoples' marksmanship or how they hunt - those arguments are all red herrings.

The facts are quite simple. For any given person, under any specific circumstance, if you increase the range and you increase the chance of something going wrong (wounding). I don't think one could put forth a reasonable argument against that statement. Therefore any person that wants to decrease the chance of something going wrong should try to get closer to their quarry. In the BOTW we have people that seem to go out of their way to make sure the shots are longer than neccessary. But let's assume that they are not avoiding getting closer to the animals (which is pretty darned hard to believe) and consider hwy they make the long shots. Are they desperate to put meat on the table? Are they simply unwilling to go home empty handed? Or are they, as I believe, trying to make money? If it is the latter then we have to consider the whole context:

1. We can all agree that wounding animals is bad;
2. Getting closer means less chance of wounding animals;
3. They purposely seek out longer shots than neccessary to harvest animals;
4. They therefore purposely seek out conditions that increase the risk of wounding animals;
5. They do this to make money.

Of course the above line of thinking presuposses that they purposely seek out long shots and that is something that can only be inferred from what we see on TV, but I think it is certainly not a stretch to make that inference.

In addition to all of that, and this is where we stray away from the facts and rely more on personal perspectives, I strongly suspect that by putting out these shows they promote some level of irresponsibility. Are there irresponsible hunters out there in any event? Were some hunters taking shots at game beyond their abilities prior to this show? Absolutely to both, but several wrongs don't make a right.

 

[lefty-Cunuck]

I am not sure many folks knew the answer to your question, regarding TOF of an arrow to 40yards.

Several of the uncontrolled variables of hunting is what the animal will do before the shot, at the shot and after the shot. It is not a unique thing to long distance shooting of any sort....but the further the distance gets the greater the margin of error increases IMHO. That is what I think some people take issue with is that they see the distance as being the limiting factor, when in reality there are other factors that could be considered much more important....but not to minimize the fact that error increases as distance also increases.

LC

 

[sheephunter]

1899.....I've never tried to make a case for what they are doing..... but sadly just trying to bring a few relevant facts to the discussion seems to automatically pit you against those without any facts. For what it's worth I agree with most of what you say. Unfortunately the discussion rarely matures from here.

I would not say that getting closer always reduces the chance of wounding. I'd say shooting position plays a significant role. If I can be prone on the bipod at 400 yards vs standing at 200, I know which one I'll take every time. There are times when getting closer does compromise shooting position. But I have no doubt they do purposefully seek out long shots to promote their products. I don't think that was ever in question.