Main Discussion Area > Arrows
penetration with stone points
duffontap:
Justin,
I totally agree that it's difficult to compare two materials that are so different. The point I'm trying to make is that 99.9% of hunters use steel heads and the people who use stone heads passionatly and dogmatically insist that it's a 'fact' that stone is better. But it's not a fact--it's clearly debatable. I think it stands to reason that we as primitives should openly and honestly deal with the pros and cons of our equipment. The truth is, it is harder to hunt primitive. Our equipment requires more skill to master and offers fewer guarantees.
Man, I've got to get to work. I have more I want to say though. I enjoy hearing everyone's perspective on stone.
J. D. Duff
Justin Snyder:
--- Quote from: J. D. Duff on July 31, 2007, 07:21:47 pm ---Justin,
I totally agree that it's difficult to compare two materials that are so different. The point I'm trying to make is that 99.9% of hunters use steel heads
J. D. Duff
--- End quote ---
Don't forget that 98.9% of hunters are stupid and LAZY. You could sell them a $10,000 heat seaking point if you got the right guy to get on TV and market it. Tell them it will help them get a monster buck and they are lining up. They have thousands of dollars of equipment that they don't even know how to use correctly. They don't even take the time to learn to shoot their compounds proficiently. The biggest reason the stone point is better is because of the dedication of the bowyer. It is like saying what constitutes a successful hunt. If it isn't the journey, you are waisting your time. In my ever so humble oppinion. ;D Justin
jamie:
im likin this post. heres my 2 cents. the biggest misconception i hear all the time is getting a complete pass through. if you rely on blood to track then yes two holes are better than one. aboriginals had to be by nature amzing trackers. im no wheres near what they were but have found animals for other hunters that 4 guys walking a grid couldnt find and that was after they had stomped all over the place. not to sound wierd but its not just in the eyes its also in the spirit. every animal i have taken with stone has dropped fairly quickly and when opened up was nothing but blood soup on the inside. with the point still in the chest cavity there is a lot of damage going on after the shot. ive done my own penetration tests with stone and steel. as with anything there are good models and bad. i used a piece of moose rawhide that came from the hump on a moose for a target. a heavy shaft with a long triangular shaped stone point with no barbs always wins . peace
D. Tiller:
JD I'm talking more from the historical perspective when I talk about mettle points and stone. Most mettle points in history were quite bendable and easily bent and hammered back into shape. The modern stuff has way too high a carbon content on it. Takes a nice edge but when it hits something hard it shatters. The iron or soft steals the native americans and others from different times made their points from was a lot softer.
David T
Hillbilly:
Stone points aren't necessarily "delicate" or easily breakable either, despite the common misconception. Obsidian is brittle and easily broken, but people who are used to obsidian, dacite and such and have never worked with rhyolite, quartzite, good basalt or raw Texas flint don't realize just how durable a stone point can be. All these get sharp as the dickens too. I've seen a large rhyolite blade being used as throwing knife, stuck deep into trees and boards time and time again without breaking. James Parker once had a couple atlatl darts at a shoot that had nice thin rhyolite stemmed points hafted on them. Several of us played with them all weekend, throwing them over and over and sticking them into everything imaginable, and I don't think we ever broke either of them.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version