Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Arrows => Topic started by: billy on May 06, 2008, 06:49:23 pm
-
Hey everyone,
The newest issue of PA is hot off the press and in it is my most recent article, Putting Bird Points to the Test. If you're a subscriber it should be arriving in your mailbox very soon.
I just wanted some feedback from ya'll as to your opinions on the article. Was it clear and easy to understand? Did you find it interesting? Did you have any additional questions after reading it?
Honestly I really enjoyed conducting the test and writing the article, and I hope everyone enjoys reading it. I try to write stuff that is interesting and will teach readers something new. I definitely learned a LOT after I conducted the test, and I wanted to pass it along to everyone. Hope ya'll enjoy it and if you have any additional questions, send me a personal message and I'll respond. I don't have internet at my place so I might not get back to ya immediately, but I promise to write back to everyone who contacts me.
Thanks!
Billy
-
Billy, I loved the article and the information was great... sorry brother but I was really turned off by the disrespectful testing on the dead deer.. you could have done the penetration test on something else in my opinion, everyone to their own thing but i am almost certain you will be getting some less than nice responce to the test subject. your research and info in the article was great... Hawk a/ho
-
I liked it, quite informative. I didn't notice the dimensions of the points listed anywhere, though (I may have overlooked it). Personally, I think the deer carcass was the most realistic test you could use- it's pretty hard to beat a dead deer as a test for seeing how well arrows will penetrate a deer.
-
I didn't give the birdpoint dimensions because I took the photos with a penny for size comparison. Most of the bird points were about as long as the diameter of a penny, so around 1/2 to 5/8 of an inch in length, and 1/8-to 1/4 of an inch in width.
And as far as being disrespectful to the deer, I don't see it that way. This was conducted as a test with scientific value. Prehistoric hunters were not shooting foam, ballistic gel or de-boned slabs of beef with bird points, which is why I chose not to test them on those materials. I think those are unrealistic and don't give accurate results. Deer are the most widespread big game animal in the country so it made sense to test them on the real thing. Archaeologists have conducted penetration tests of stone tipped spears on dead elephants to determine if Clovis points were capable of felling mammoths. I know because I've read the articles. But I've never read any literature on someone testing arrows tipped with stone birdpoints, so I decided that I'd be the one to do it. I stand behind the test and everything I wrote because I think it was important, informative, and it has archaeological value. But I appreciate your input and opinions! Keep 'em coming.....
-
i havent recieved my new issue yet but i look forward to it.
i have tested stone points on a dead deer before. it tought me much more than i knew before. 2-3 shots into the rib cage gave me a good schooling. the way i see it, you use one dead deer to work out the bugs instead of wounding live deer. as much as i respect and appriciate hawkbow's opinion, i feel i can respect deer more by realistic testing my gear before experimentation if needed. again, no dis-respect to your beliefs hawkbow, just a different outlook i suppose. - Ryan
-
I havn't got mine yet, I think mine's coming by pack mule from North Carolina.
-
Well at least the Deer was dead....and not like the Rabbit that took 3-4 shots to anniilate
-
eddie they were handing them out at Pappy's, think I have 2 :o
Lets not turn this into an arguement guys
-
Dang Dana, you sure are in a happy mood. I still haven't got mine so I am in a fighting mood. >:D Justin
-
twisted limbs I see your point about the experiment, and not wounding deer by what you learned..Hawk
-
I enjoyed the article, and found it very informative. I was surprised at the test medium, but only because we have become so " P.C." lately. Really, what better way to run the test? Well done.
-
awesome job billy. ive done a lot of tests similar to yours and in my early years of hunting killed 2 deer with what could be considered bird points . before i knew there was a legal width . my only problem with using a dead animal is you miss one factor. its the twitch factor. live tissue will contract on an arrow and other muscles like the legs kicking back will change how much penetration you get. its not much and i can tell you from my experience bird points kill and will pass completely through an animal. the two deer i took i found my arrows stuck in the ground behind it. there were also impressive blood trails for such small points. if i can find all the papers i had i'll make copies for ya. i know a guy from new york who has been compiling data on the damage done by stone points for years . i'll contact him to see if he is willing to share with ya. peace
-
I' haven't yet completed the article but I have found what I have read interesting. I've been hunting with stone points for the last 3 years but haven't yew made a kill. I'll keep trying.
When I lived in Coastal SC there was one spot we hunted artifacts and the only points we found at that spot were "bird" points. Below are a few pics of the ones I have in my collection. Everywhere else we hunted artifacts in Coastal SC we never found bird points but many other types...even a 10" obsidian blade. Like in Billy's article, the penny is for size comparison. Pat
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Billy, yours was the first article I read through, and I appreciated it. Thanks.
Sean
-
Makes you wonder? I know that here in the desert S.W. there was virtually no bow wood and maybe it was hard to get a heavy bow from willows, so if you are stuck with a light bow then shoot what will make it work. Any way it is a given that they would penetrate better if they dont explode on a rib. What we need now is a test on bison, I think the plains indians used small points also but surely you would need a much heavier bow, even tho they must have targeted the young. I guess if you were running them from horse back you would just give it another arrow if the first did not penetrate. If you timed your shot for when the animal was stretched out you would have a better chance of slipping one between the ribs. I have read that when running the buffaloe you could count it as a dead animal if blood came out the nose ( indicating a lung shot) and go after another. Of corse they would be easier to find on the plains. Enjoyed the article.
-
Billy: Haven't read the article yet, but have found so many of them here in Northwest Wyoming that I believe they were used for all types of big game including Mountain Sheep by the "sheepeaters". They are also found at the bottom of buffalo jumps because the archers could send a long shafted arrow deep into a wounded buffalo. Back when we could hunt with stone points, if a missed shot ended with a still usable shaft, I would just reflake the point and use the arrow again. Some times that meant a very small point. Worked just fine. The term "bird point" is very misleading! Watcher
-
i thought it was neat, i dont have flint to knap but use glass and it was imformative...
-
I dont think the majority of bird points were reworked from larger points. If you look closley you can tell a point that has been reworked and sharpened in that the base is usually much wider than the rest of the head.
Have not read the article yet. Need to get into the post office and get my mail. Cant wait to read it! Especially the penetration test. Did you test also on how they did against bone. Something makes me think they would have the tendency to break and penetrate bone or glance off easily and continue penetration.
How ya doin Billy? You ever going to get back east again and join us arround the ol' Volcano knapping obsidian?
David T
-
Just read the article, enjoyed it billy. Also made some bird points tonight, I'm just a beginer at Knapping and brought home a bunch of flakes from Pappy's that the more experienced guys considered junk, but guess what I managed to get some points out of them ;D Actually their not bad and sharp as all heck, I can see how they would penetrate deep and kill efficiently. It may very well have been a case of maximizing their available materials. Anyway doubt if we will ever know fer sure.
-
Hey Dana! Holy Wa Eh!
Well, out at Glass Buttes we were finding lots of bird points and that is one of the major sources for obsidian in the Northwest. So they were making them even though they had the materials to make larger points. So there must have been a reason they made them so small. Ishi once said he liked small points for hunting bear and large points for deer. Penetration ability? Maybe! But untill we start hunting with them we will never be certain for sure. Plus, the game warden would no like it! ;D
David T
-
Billy, great informative article. I've been in the process of making up a set of foreshafts with small points and I'm going to hunt with them. I'm with David Tiller, I think a lot of them came from snapped points. I've been saving the tips of all the points I've broken and reworking them. And after thinning they are all about the same.
Again that is one of the best articles I've read in Primitive Archer in a long time.
-
Eddie you should have a perfect opportunity to do further testing on live hogs, hope you do and let us know how you do. Nice meeting you at the classic. Kenneth
-
Billy, really enjoyed the article and the fact finding process that you used. I did a similar test on two blade and three blade steel broadheads in the late '80s. Nothing like making it as real as possible to get real answers and not guesses. The only criticism I have is constructive and not negative. In the midwest, roadkill deer are very easy to acquire on any given day and I would utilize that carcass over a nice clean killed deer that I worked hard for to harvest. This also brings up the question of the outcome of that deer after the experiment. Was it discarded or salvaged?
Great article.
Tracy
-
I enjoyed the article also. I've been making bigger heavier points to give more weight up front and make my arrows fly straighter. Think I"ll try some "bird points" with heavy foreshafts on the hogs pretty soon.
-
Glad ya'll liked the article. To answer your questions Tracy, roadkilled deer are rare around my parts. There are lots of subdivisions going in and the deer have become scattered. I would have definitely used a fresh roadkilled deer if I could find one, but usually by the time I see them they are bloated, putrid, and I wouldn't even get near them.
As for the deer, the only regret about the test is that the deer had to be discarded. When my friend Jason shot the deer it was on a Monday in early october. Even though we had put ice bags in the deer's chest, that week we had temperatures in the mid 90's!! By the time I was able to conduct the test on Wednesday afternoon the deer was already going bad. I kept the deer in the coolest part of a large metal building, but I had to work all day tuesday so I was unable to replace the ice bags until the end of the day. By wed afternoon, it was getting really stinky. There were green patches in the meat and I wasn't about to risk food poisoning by eating the thing. I felt really bad about that.....
-
Billy: I loved the approach you used to test your theory. It's a shame the deer went to waste, but if the info gained will help in clean kills in the future, I feel the loss is minimal. Journalistically speaking, you did a good job in conveying the data as well. Keep up the good work.
Mike
-
Hi Billy,
It was a great article with good photos and a real scientific approach. I always wondered why my friend from Gunnison,CO who was addicted to point hunting, always found small "bird points". These are from the Southern Ute tribe located in this area.
-
Kenneth, Yes I will try them down on the ranch I get to hunt. They don't care what happens to the hogs there since they destroy so much. It is a shame to watch them kill 15 or 20 and just dump them in the gut pile.
-
Billy, I took a cue from your article and have almost finished two cane arrows with bird pointed foreshafts in them. They are pretty neat so far.
Sean
-
billy, no dissrespect to hawk, but as long as you didnt just stick the dead deer, then go throw it out, it wernt dissrespectfull. uuuh, ya did eat the thing whey you were done didnt ya? if not, shame on ya.
-
i know he ate it curve
-
i thought so. ;D
-
As for the deer, the only regret about the test is that the deer had to be discarded. When my friend Jason shot the deer it was on a Monday in early october. Even though we had put ice bags in the deer's chest, that week we had temperatures in the mid 90's!! By the time I was able to conduct the test on Wednesday afternoon the deer was already going bad. I kept the deer in the coolest part of a large metal building, but I had to work all day tuesday so I was unable to replace the ice bags until the end of the day. By wed afternoon, it was getting really stinky. There were green patches in the meat and I wasn't about to risk food poisoning by eating the thing. I felt really bad about that.....
Then you need to read the whole Thread....you are both wrong..........I have spent litterally whole Nights looking for Animals that I have shot...and that ran off and hid to die....just to not waste what I Shot..... I grew up with 5 Sisters and 4 Brothers....and every Animal that We Killed was consumed.... they were not wasted....I have not got my Magazine as of yet...so I can not comment on the Article and it's Data that was aquired from Shooting this Animal with Arrows....but I will side with Hawk on this..... That was a waste of an Animal...and in my Opinion........and I know that Opinions are Like Buttholes.......they mostly stink............ I could not and would not have anything to do with the Harvest and waste of a Deer or a Catfish for that matter....I would not Kill an Animal....if it was not going to be used to the Best of My Abilities....to Kill an Animal....and then let it go to waste....is an unforgivable act in my Book.......so I hope that you learned one heck of a lot from this so-called experiment and will not have to repeat the Waste again........JMO
-
I liked the use of an actual deer for penetration test. Any one who has ever shot a deer with an arrow now has a basis of comparison on the "Bird point' performance. Your article was interesting, entertaining, and I for one thought well researched.
As for the "bird points" I have often wondered if these were actually "kids points". I know I have knapped some tiny points for my grandkids bows. They are really easy to knapp and the grandkids loved them. I can see Indian Dads turning out a mess of these for their kids to use. Just my speculation. :-\
I am looking forward to your future articles.
-
Great article Billy !!
I enjoyed every bit of it !
John
-
Thanks for the reply Billy. I appreciate and respect your honesty of the fate of the deer after testing. If everyone that reads the article gains some new experience and knowledge then that is a plus. I don't like to see the meat wasted but understand that your intent wasn't malicious and if the temperatures had been cooler you would have utilized this wonderful renewable resource. If your goal was to open minds to the underestimated effectvieness of "bird points" then you have succeeded.
Thank You
Tracy
-
Billy, I don't think there is a size reg on broadheads in GA. Check the reg book. I believe all they say about archery equipment is...it has to be a compound, longbow, recurve or cross bow and the arrow has to be a "broadhead" type. I'll recheck but I don't remember there being a broadhead size limit. Pat
-
Pat,
I remember several years ago when reading in the GA game regs that they did have a minimal broadhead width...I think 3/4 of an inch. But it was years ago and I haven't seen this minimum width repeated since then. I guess the DNR assumes that most people will be hunting with modern broadheads which seem to tout their cutting diameter in all their ads, so broadhead size isn't really a concern. But you know how the govt is about those kinds of things and would probably say that my bird points were illegal, even though it's not stated in the current regulations. I remember once when I was hunting in Oregon and was stopped by Oregon State Police (the State Police enforce game laws out there) and he checked my tags to make sure I was legal. Of course I was, but he didn't say anything about my obsidian points, which were only 1/2" wide (minimum width is 7/8").
For anyone else who was upset that I "wasted" the deer,
I had full intentions of butchering and eating the deer after the test was completed. That's why I put ice bags in its chest. But unfortunately a dead deer doesn't pay the bills, The temperature was very warm, I had to work the entire next day, and I was unable to replace the ice bags in time. Part of the reason for the autopsy was also to see if there was any meat that was still o.k. to eat. But there wasn't. The tendons in the hindquarters, legs, and back all had a greenish tint to them, and there were loads of flies around that thing. That is my only regret about the test...that the deer had to be thrown away. I can understand that some people might have been upset, but I did as much as I could to preserve the deer. If I could have sent someone else to work for me on tuesday I would have been able to conduct the test a day earlier and gotten it butchered before it spoiled.
-
I still haven't seen my magazine. :'( I do have to say that I love the idea of testing on a dead deer. I have tested on road kill before. It is illegal to pick them up, but there are no regulations on shooting them right there on the side of the road. >:D It is to bad you were unable to keep it cool enough to not spoil, but sometimes we have that problem even when we are just trying to cool them by hanging. If you don't have access to a walk in refrigerator, it is a peril we all face if the weather turns hot.
The major concern I have isn't the deer or penetration, it doesn't even have a lot to do with the article. It is a matter of mathematics. If you shoot a 1/4" point you have 1/3 the chance of cutting major arteries that you would shooting a 3/4" point. If you miss the major arteries by 1/32" you risk loosing the deer. The extra width on the point would have finished the deer in real short order. I don't have enough confidence in my hitting the heart or a major artery every time to reduce the point size I am shooting. From my point of view, a 1" slice at 7" of penetration is 7 square inches of damage. A 1/4" point penetrating 14" will only amass 1.75" square inches of damage. Justin
-
Kind of why I blieve small points were used is that most hunting bows made my Natives here in the northwest often averaged arround 35 - 40# draw weight. Smaller points would then penetrate further and do more damage. Our bows these days are much heavier in comparison. But I also think small points were likley big game points used for Elk and Bear. Deaper penetration and more through and throughs. I would also only go after bear with these if I had someone allong to keep pumping them out as you are too. Pincusion the sucker! Then RUN!!! :o
-
I thought the article was very informative. It was about the closest possible way to determine actual arrow penetration on a deer. I always thought bird points were intended for small game, but it seems as though they can be quite lethal on big game in close range. On the reed shafts did you use phragmites? If so when is the best time to collect the phrag.
Rick
-
One of the best articles I've read. It would be good to have a comparison someday with larger stone or steel broadheads.
I understand the theory that a larger, wider blade will kill faster because of cutting more arteries. But any hole in the chest cavity causes the lung on that side to collapse. The right and left sides of the chest are separated by a membrane, so an arrow that does not penetrate to both sides of the chest (entering the cavities for both lungs) does not cause both to collapse. Deeper penetration, causing both sides to collapse, insures the animal will expire regardless of the amount of bleeding.
We generally think it's the bleeding that kills. Sure, but that is because the blood is carrying oxygen. If the animal can't breathe (both lungs collapsed) then the effect is the same. It's all part of the same system- heart, lungs, blood. Put any of the 3 out of commission and you have a kill.
-
Rich, Your theory is partially correct. You have to think of the lungs not as a balloon that pops, but as a car tire that deflates. Air entering the chest cavity through the wound hole creates an air pocket outside the lung and as that grows the lung colapses. It could take quite some time before the colapse actually happens. If the hole is small or if the arrow still plugs the hole the deflation is even slower. I wont pretend it wont kill them, but if they go for several miles and the hole is small enough that there is little blood outside the hole the deer is usually lost. Justin
-
I agree (being a scientist who studies the lung) and from personal experience, a pneumothorax can slow ya down, but not stop ya! I think a large entry hole and an arrow shaft wobbling about as the deer bounds away would help deflate the lung faster. On an animal with thick hair and a good fat layer, it would be hard to get much lung collapse just from poking a smallish hole in the chest.
-
Also have to take in the slashing of the arrow in the cavity of the animal as it bounds away. Creates a much larger wound especially if its super sharp like and obsidian point!
-
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
-
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
-
If I go bow hunting for turkey I will definatly use bird points!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Billy, you don't have to convince me that accuracy is what kills. I have always said people should use the bow they are the most accurate with, not the one considered a "better draw weight." I just think a guy can improve his odds. In not sure what the use of these narrow points was. I suspect they used them mostly on small game because small game is more plentiful. Even the larger predators like mountain lion eat a lot of rabbit. ;)
Traxx, good points, but you forgot one. They spent a lot of time making equipment to start treating it as disposable like we do today. Why keep shooting arrows when one will do the job. Save the rest for tomarrows lunch. Justin
-
Justin,
I thought that i implied that point,in my post,but may have failed.LOL
Regardless,thanxx for postin n makeing it obvious.Many times ,in my rambleings,i leave things in question,or flat out forget.Especially when Ishi is mentioned.I get all giddy n spazz out sometimes.LOL
-
I liked the article. The meat spoiled but it was a worthy sacrifice for science. Too much anecdotal evidence out there, and it's nice to see someone actually putting things to the test.
I started a thread about it here: http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,7065.0.html (http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,7065.0.html)
-
I have some "bird points" in my collection. One in particular is mounted on a fore shaft and inserted into the arrow shaft. My Father picked it up for me in the late 40's in Wilmington NC at an antique shop on his way home to Ct. I will bring it to Hickory for anyone interested in it. Will post photos here tomorrow if anyone is interested in seeing photos of it. BTW Billy, ex++++ article. Good job.
Dick Bernier
-
Billy et all. Here is the footed shaft my Father picked up for me on the coast of NC. It is 32 1/2 inches long and the footing is 5 1/2 inches long sticking out of the shaft. The shaft is 5/16 in dia and I believe it is cane. An archaeologist said he did not think so and pointed to the feature of the hole. He said it looked like it was drilled out using a tapered stone tool. There are remnants of the original sinew and the shaft was discolored where the fletching was tied on. I added the fletching years ago. It has a self nock wrapped with sinew. Overall it is a very nice artifact. I will bring it to Hickory this weekend if anyone is interested in seeing it. Maybe we can "nail down" the shaft material.
Dick
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thats cool, Dick. Looking forward to checking it out in person this weekend. Pat
-
I imagine the ancient hunter sometimes had a hard time coming by good stone. It was in short supply under certain circumstances. Perhaps you mentioned this in your article, but why not use the resource economically as long as the smaller points work reasonably well?
Dave
-
David, we find points this small even where there are abundant resources. Kennan found some while we were out at Glass Buttes, OR one huge source of obsidian and they were still using small points!
-
Well sad to say I brought the arrow and foreshaft you saw above in this thread to Hickory for some of the guys to see. A fellow picked it up from the table and snapped the tip off. It ended up in the tall grass and after looking several times over the weekend could not find it. I don't think it was on purpose but this is an object lesson for me. Guard your artifacts.
Dick Bernier
-
Interesting D. Tiller. Thanks for adding that observation. Seems a little complicated to me though. We all know once you find a formula that works in an archery setup, we're inclined to keep in. If most living (hunting) was done far from a large stone source, perhaps even near one the economical habit of small points would be practiced. Whole lot easier to carry smaller than larger points too. Just pointing out that there are considerations in addition to ones directly related to lethality. I should shut up until I at least read the article though :)
-
As Billy wrote they were also used for warfare. The light weight poundage on most of these bows makes for the use of lighter arrows and points.
-
Billy, I enjoyed your article, nice job. I believe you're right on that the Native Americans for the most part used bows of lighter draw weight than what most of us use today. I think your bow and arrows used in the article would be very effective on deer size game at close ranges.
Alan
-
i thought it was great. i will use them for small game
-
I picked up a copy of PA the other day but just got around to reading the article. I think it was very well done and provided concrete evidence for a theory people have had for some time (i.e. that "bird" points were really used on large game). Since the adoption of the bow by the tribes here in VA, the points got progressively smaller over time. I believe this is the case for a number of reasons- smaller points are easier to make and make better use of the lithic resource, the original, larger points were just smaller versions of dart points, and they came to the realization that large points were just not needed to take deer. If anyone is interested, there's an interesting article in the April 2006 issue of "American Antiquity" entitled "Projectile point shape and durability: the effect of thickness: length". It's got lots of good info for modern abos wanting to hunt with stone points. Here's the abstract:
We describe an experiment that tests the hypothesis that projectile points with high thickness:length ratios are more durable than points with low thickness:length ratios. Fifty obsidian projectile points were manufactured to specific lengths, widths, and thicknesses. These were then fired into a deer carcass with a bow repeatedly until each point broke. None of the points were resharpened. The hardness of the material struck was a significant predictor of a point's durability. Controlling for this variable, however, we found that points with a high thickness:length ratio (> .121) were slightly albeit significantly more durable than those with a low ratio. No other attribute of size or shape was a significant predictor of durability
Will
-
Dang good info Little John. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Billy, you did a great job. There are still more questions than answers and that will always be the case. I see your effort kinda like Thor Heyerdahls Kon- tiki expedition. You demonstrated it really works, at least under the circumstances you tested. One of the important points to my way of thinking is that you used a sinew string. You tested a primitive package, not just the points.
Dave
-
I finally got the chance to read the article.Good article Billy.Thanxx for takein the time and effort to do the test and write about it.Very informative.It also,imho,illustrates,why most early people,took to useing steel or iron points when availiable to them.
-
Little Jon,
I would like to address and discuss your Buff hunting theories,but dont want to hijack this thread.I will post it in the hunting forum,if you are interested.
-
I thought that the article was very informative. I knew that light/moderate poundage self bows could kill deer. However, I never thought about using bird points for deer size game until I read your article. In retrospect it makes some sense. If you have two arrows (one with a bird point and the other with a larger broadhead) and they are shot from the same bow, the arrow with the smaller arrowhead should penetrate farther since the same amount of energy is concentrated in a smaller area. It would not be fare to compare field points to bird points, as far as trying to get maximum penetration on deer size game, since bird points are a true broadhead (just smallert than "normal" broadheads) and field points only have a sharp point and no cutting edges. Again, a very interesting article.