Main Discussion Area > Arrows
Wanted "bird point" article feedback...
n2everythg:
I thought it was an excellent article. Throughly enjoyed it. and read the whole thing through a couple times.
Well written, I think your systematic approach to the "testing' was well thought out and complete as well.
N2
Pat B:
When primitive man did this, he would track the animal until it either died or until he could get another arrow in it. He wasn't worrying about PITA or the ASPCA on his back plus he had the time to pursue his quarry. Today, we want a fast clean kill.
I appreciate what Billy has done here. I often wondered about these small points also. I have a bow that my wife bought me in New Mexico a few years ago. The bowyer(Vernon Brown) is Taos Pueblo Indian and this was his personal bow the year before. He gave her an arrow to go along with the bow and it had a very small point on it. It was his turkey hunting arrow and he preferred a small point because it would go between the feathers and a larger one might not. Pat
D. Tiller:
If I go bow hunting for turkey I will definatly use bird points!
billy:
Rich,
Actually the reed arrow wasn't phragmites (I misidentified it). It was actually a plant called Giant Reed (arundo donax) and is a europen reed that has been introduced. But it is very, very similar to the numerous reed arrows I've seen made by many western tribes. You can harvest reed at any time, as long as it is second or third year shoots. First year shoots are much too weak for arrows. I'm actually working on an article for Primitive Archer about making your own primitive arrows, and in it I'll have close-up pictures of reed and other arrow materials.
To Justin,
I also read your post about the mathematics and amount of tissue damage done by a larger point vs. a smaller one. I definitely agree with you on that, a smaller point will not damage as much tissue as a wider point. But I also believe that the old guys weren't shooting 60 or 70 pound bows. Instead, they were shooting 35 to 45 and at the most 50 pounds (there were exceptions, of course). I think they were more concerned with accuracy, not raw power. If they were more accurate with a lighter poundage bow, then I think they adapted their arrows to that. Their bows were lighter, their arrows were smaller (and therefore lighter) and lacked the intertia of a heavier arrow. I definitely agree that you should shoot the widest point that will give you sufficient penetration.
Another thing I noticed with the bird point test was that only one of the seven arrows that I shot directly hit a rib on entry (that I could tell). The smaller points seemed more likely to slip between the ribs , missing what is the greatest impediment to penetration: bone.
When I go hunting I will usually come home empty handed. It isn't because my bow lacked enough power, but because I missed my target. If I were more accurate, I would be much more successful in making kills. It's accuracy that brings home the bacon, at least in my opinion.
Traxx:
Billy,
I havent had the oportunity to read the article as of yet,but have enjoyed your articles in the past,and expect i will enjoy this one as well.Based on feedback from this thread,as well as a thread on another site,i assume ,you had favorable results.This is no surprise to me,as it just verifies what a vast amount of early Native hunters,had known,for some time.Ishi,used a 40 lb bow,with a 25" draw,and What would be considered Bird Points.I know this contradicts what most have seen of Ishis points,that he Knapped while at the university.I have personally seen and held points made by Ishi,that he knapped pre civilization,and they are indeed smaller than anything i have seen Post civilization.The fact that they were used by Ishi,as well as countless other early Native hunters,tells me of their merit.I trust in these hunters judgement,as they hunted for a liveing.
As for the theories,that NDN people werent as concerned about Quick clean Kills,i have my doubts.True,they didnt have the ethics police or ARA's to contend with,as we do now,But,i feel they may have had other reasons for wanting a quick clean kill,as possible,as we do today.Native people,didnt have the luxuries that we do today.They wounded and lost game,they didnt eat.No trips to the grocery store for them,if game wasnt procured.I believe that it has been agreed upon by most on these sites,that early Primitive Humans,took the least physical path when possible,to save energy time and materials.Tracking wounded animals for lengthy periods would use up valuable energy as well as possible loss of time and hard earned and worked arrow material.Lets also consider,the issue of predators,finding and stealing said game,before the hunter.There were generally more numbers of predators in those days.In Ishis time alone,their were still Grizzly in California.Also,hunting,was generally not carried out as we do today.It was usually a combined Tribal effort,at certain times.This was to Minimize pressure on Game and to procure enough game for all in the band.To have individuals constantly out scouring for individuall game,would put tremendous pressure on game causeing game movement,and consequently more tribal movement.More time energy and resources used.When they did hunt,they did it in as a efficient manner as possible,to get what they needed when they needed it.To do so,I believe they would have used as efficient methods and materials as they could.If folks could see the old Deer and Pronghorn Runs of the early people,you could see how efficient and well thougfht out their methods were.It is just Awesome to me.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version