Doc--you are also putting your own and as of late the PGC's twist on the role of the PGC and hunters. The PGC WAS NOT created to "use hunters to control the deer or any wildlife population". The agency was created to PROTECT the deer and wildlife from uncontrolled hunting thereby assuring their survival and to CREATE and MAINTAIN legal hunting opportunties. They didn't buy up all that land and plant food and cover crops to  control the deer population. They did it to INCREASE hunting opportunities. This new concept which you are helping to spread is the new brainchild of the enviromentalists and anti hunters to simply have hunters considered a necessary evil to be tolerated until they have the predator prey relationship where they want it. At that time we will no longer be needed and would be detrimential to any wildlife population if we were allowed to hunt. 

S-10 ---
 
Okay that's what I thought..
 
#1.. you're still back in the days of Dr. Alt and that was over 8 years ago.. Dr Alt is gone... let him go in peace it's now 2009......
 
and #2....

PGC's stated goal of reducing pressure on the bucks

 
It is not and was not a stated goal of the PGC --- it is simply something Dr Alt "THOUGHT or HOPED would happen  .... and thus has nothing to do with today's thinking..
 
 
A person better not make anything a GOAL.. if it is based on what they THINK another person might or might not do.......

Here is an article I found by searching 'reduce pressure on bucks.'
 
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?A=11&Q=155970
 
Now, Gary Alt is quoted for saying it, but I don't think it's possible for us to determine if that was Alt's idea (only) or the PGC's.   Gary did a lot of the public speaking for AR/HR, but that doesn't necessarily mean he made the decision to 'reduce pressure on bucks.'   If the PGC didn't agree with it, I don't think he would have been saying it.
 
Ultimately, AR's purpose is to reduce pressure on bucks by moving 50% (or so) of th 1.5 year olds to the next age class.

Not this stuff again!!!!
 
I hate crossbows even more now, 4 pages worth. And the other threads 14 pages...

Rick,
 
I believe we agree with each other, but not on the string leaving the arrow theory. Their is more storage of energy with more stroke. I may be wrong but Ive read this in articles that proved to me to be true. Its kind of like: If you swing a maul with 100lb of energy with a 2' stroke, you dont get much penetration, but if you swing the maul from 6' with a 100lb of energy, the energy transfers further and splits the log. Im no master of physics, by no means am I telling you to believe it, but from my experience and readings Ive found this to be fact. Do we got any physics teachers on here that can back one of our theories up.

ORIGINAL: nightowl207

Rick,

I believe we agree with each other, but not on the string leaving the arrow theory. Their is more storage of energy with more stroke. I may be wrong but Ive read this in articles that proved to me to be true. Its kind of like: If you swing a maul with 100lb of energy with a 2' stroke, you dont get much penetration, but if you swing the maul from 6' with a 100lb of energy, the energy transfers further and splits the log. Im no master of physics, by no means am I telling you to believe it, but from my experience and readings Ive found this to be fact. Do we got any physics teachers on here that can back one of our theories up.

 
 
Night owl,
 
I've done a couple years of physics, have my engineering degree, and have taught it and tutored it if that helps any.
 
You are absolutely correct that a longer power stroke will translate into more energy.  With your example of the maul, the 2' stroke means that your muscles have had a 2' swing to add energy into the maul.  That would translate into a certain speed at the head of the maul.  If you take that same swing and make it 6' you have the same 2' swing and the same speed at the end of the 2' swing as you had before, but you also have another 4' of swing to add more energy to the maul (from your muscles).
 
The comparable analogy here is if you took a bow at 28" draw and shot it.  You've got a 28" power stroke (minus the brace height).  If you then extend the draw length out to 30" with the same arrow, you've still got that same 28" power stroke (minus the brace height) as before, plus the two inches you've just added of draw length.  That's why the same bow in a longer draw length will be faster.  It just has a longer power stroke.  The power stroke is simply the transfer of energy from the limbs of the bow to the arrow.  The stored energy is in the limbs and is transferred to the arrow during the power stroke, but not after (i.e. when the arrow leaves the string).
 
When you draw a bow, you create potential energy in the bow by flexing the limbs.  The power stroke is simply how that potential energy is transferred into the arrow.  As soon as you release the string the arrow starts moving forward.  The movement of the arrow is the transfer of potential energy stored in the bow into kinetic energy of the arrow.  That transfer will continue as long as the bow is pushing the arrow forward.  When the string comes to the brace height, it stops moving forward but the arrow continues and leaves the string.  This is where the total energy of the arrow becomes fixed.  The bow is no longer contacting the arrow and can exert no more force on the arrow.  At that point, the arrow becomes a projectile and is subject to the laws of ballistics.
 
A crossbow is identical to a bow from a physics standpoint.  The bow is drawn and energy is stored in the limbs.  The string is released and the energy is transferred from limbs to arrow.  The arrow leaves the bow and becomes a projectile.  Of course there are significant differences not captured int he physical model (which is what everyone argues about) but from a physical system standpoint, they are identical for energy transfer and modeling.  A crossbow has a shorter power stroke but a higher draw weight (thus much more energy stored in the limbs but less time to unload that energy).
 
The most important part for this conversation though, is that once the arrow leaves the string the bow has no more influence over it.  Physically it is impossible as they are not in contact.  The amount of energy that the arrow starts with is determined and fixed as soon as the arrow leaves the bow. 
 
A comparable analogy would be two rifles each shooting the same bullet.  Let's say you take a 308 win and a 30-06 Spr, each shooting a 150 gr bullet.  The 308 has a 26" barrel and the -06 has a 22" barrel.  The muzzle velocity of the bullets is a comfortable 2750 fps from each gun.  As soon as the bullet leaves the muzzle, the gun has no more influence over it.  Thus, both bullets in this case will have the exact same trajectory.  It doesn't matter that the 308 has a longer power stroke (and extra 4" of barrel to contain the pressure and push against the bullet).  Once the bullet leaves the muzzle the starting energy of the bullet is fixed.
 
Back to arrows, in this case we have a 425 gr bolt and a 425 gr arrow both going the same speed when they leave the bows.  The kinetic energy is the same for both and either of us can calculate it.  Both will loose energy with air resistance.  If they have the same fletchings and other components (that influence air resistance) then they will loose energy at the same rate.
 
Thanks,
Rick
 
 

My whole argument against X-bows does not revolve around the effective range of the bolt versus the arrow once it has left it's deliver point.  It involves what goes on to get to that point.
 
 
 
Archery hunting to me is defined by that precise moment when you have lured game within range and have to DRAW on the game.  Not just raising up your weapon to aim it but the actual draw itself. As anyone who has done it knows a million and one things can go wrong in this process...........and even after the draw where you are holding back and have limited time until physical fatigue takes place.  All of that forces you to be mentally sharp on when to draw on game in relation to where it is to your position.  The motion of the draw and duping your quarry at that precise moment.  Point click shoot is just that, shooting as you would with a gun.  It is not the same.  
 
It is the easy way out to saying you "archery hunt"......which is really a misnomer because X-bow shooting is not Archery hunting.   There is nothing anyone can tell me otherwise that will change my mind.  The way society is today, does it really suprise anyone that people want the easy way out in hunting too? 
 
Allow X-bows for general firearms season or inclusion into muzzleloader season  but don't tell me it's archery hunting.  Start calling it what it really is and that is X-bow shooting.
 
 
 
.
 
 
.

Most of the compound guys argue the "easy way out" theory. And X-bows are not archery equipment, that they are of new technology. X bows have been in history longer than compounds have. Any piece of equipment that stores energy in limbs, transfers it throught a string, and projects an arrow, is archery equipment. If you dont want people to have the easy wasy out, then how about this proposal: first four weeks of archery season, only recurves and longbows with no more or less than 2 fixed blades. The last 2 weeks, compound and crossbow gets included. Id go with that. If people are so worried about the effect on the herd, the first 4 weeks being recurve and longbow only will make up for the last 2 weeks of xbow/compound. 

Unfortunately nightowl, as the definition currently stands, a crossbow is not archery equipment.  Infact, crossbow records for this state go in with the rifle records, not archery.
 
One week from now you may be able to legally classify crossbows as archery equipment but not today.  ..  or perhaps you might be waiting a real long time.
 
 

okay and mine is that archery equipment doesn't involve a stock, a scope, internal ballistics..etc.
 
oh sheeshhh, I could go on for a long time. 
 
My opinion is as valuable as yours. 

A riser is a stock ?   You're gasping air now.
 
A stock with ability to shoulder it.
 
A scope with magification.

they also have pistol stock crossbows, you dont shoulder them. So that isnt a stock. You hold it in one hand , just like a compound.

what do you mean, 8x huh? 8x, up to 8x magnifcation made for COMPOUND bows. Yes, crossbow pistols, you never heard of a crossbow pistol or compound scopes. Lift up the rock and take a look around every once in a while.

Well what do you know...FINALLY ----  something that I may be able to compromise on and support.....
 

then how about this proposal:
 
first four weeks of archery season, only recurves and longbows with no more or less than 2 fixed blades.
 
The last 2 weeks, compound and crossbow gets included. 

 

Hey Ricky!!!!
I heard you were overseas?  Where?  If so, what the hell you doing over there?  PM me.

Rick,
I hunt with my bow at 83#'s.  How do I figure out the foot pounds the arrow hits at?  Energy?  I've always been curious.

Ironhed