Contributors to this thread:
Check out the buffalo Kill and story on the Leatherwall. Good stuff.
fake news. Kill on the Leatherwall lol
You talking about this one-
https://leatherwall.bowsite.com/tf/lw/thread2.cfm?forum=23&threadid=332232&messages=50&CATEGORY=9
Yeah, with a 45# recurve too... Good stuff, no need for a macho now to kill a buffalo...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is one of the reasons buffalo/bison were hunted so effectively by native Americans with "wimpy" bows is it only took a single penetration into the lung cavity for their lungs to collapse (vs a pass-through or double-lung wound). So although huge, they are easier to kill than say an elk.
You still have to get through or between a goodly-sized rib though.
Bison. Not buffalo. Still as nice kill with a trad bow of the poundage.
Bison/buffalo ………..ever heard of a bison nickel ? ;-)
Just technically not correct. And a big difference in toughness. No big deal. Still a great harvest.
But then again, perhaps they identify as a buffalo. Who knows?
I am curious about the arrow. It says it was 31” long. So how long is the guys draw length? Anything over 28” and he is adding pounds to that 45# bow.
Lots of Trad guys run long arrows to help weaken the spine. Also they want the Broadhead way in front of their hand and some use it to aim with.
So unlike compounds where actual arrow length is usually shorter than draw, Trad shooting, especially off the shelf is always longer than DL
Also most people will shorten their draw on a trad bow. It would be unlikely that this hunter has a DL much longer than 28”. The arrow length is just uncut probably for the mentioned reasons
Probably close to 28" draw but left carbons longer to tune with heavier head to get an overall heavy arrow. I know some traditional guys do this looking for increased FOC, heavy set ups. But, I could be assuming and totally of base.
I’ll guess that with 400 spine and just #45, he needed to soften up those shafts considerably. Especially with weight tubes.
I shoot 28” 500s with 200 gr up front from #52; at that length, I don’t think I can get tuned with a 400 with less than #62 behind it and I’ll likely still need 175-200 gr up front. Which is fine by me, because I don’t really wanna mess with weight tubes. And 200 gr up front takes my 500 spines close to 500 gr… I suppose I could see my way clear to a brass insert to make weight if need be.
Or maybe a 2117 or a woodie….
FWIW, if bison are easier to kill than Elk, it’s probably because their lungs are just a bigger target with bigger vessels all through it - a crap shot on a deer is probably 10-ring on bison- and blood pressure goes up exponentially with blood vessel diameter. I think it’s cubed.
I am a 27” draw on most stick bows and use a 30” arrow for reasons Wilderness stated. I raised Bison for years and have shot or been on many shots involving them. The target area is obviously larger. But in my opinion the reason they seem easier to kill is they tend to take a hit similar to how Moose takes an arrow or bullet. They are more likely to take it and either just stand there. Or spin a little and jump but don’t usually do death sprint. Most often stand there and bleed out. In sight. Of course never 100%
Someone on the LW killed something? Hang on...I think a pig just flew by....
I'm 28" draw with trad bows and shoot full length 400 carbons with 125 grain heads from 53-57# recurves and longbows. And I've killed a lot of stuff with that combo.
Corax, with all due respect weight tubes don't affect spine. That's why many (me included) prefer them to messing around trying to tune with a bunch of different weights up front.
I watched Dances with Wolves for the umpteenth time over the weekend on the Outdoor Channel. In the buffalo hunt scene the buffalo were nose diving into the ground with the impact of one well placed arrow. Ya gotta love Hollywood. Still an excellent film though imo.
In all seriousness - happy for the fella. Partially paralyzed and still getting after it. That's awesome.
Buffalo and Bison are pretty much the same thing. They were called buffalo before scientists got involved and they realized they weren't actually of the buffalo genus so they named them bison. Just an fyi
“ weight tubes don't affect spine.”
No, they don’t affect the static spine of the shaft, but the added payload reduces the dynamic spine requirement for the bow by cutting into the G-forces applied under acceleration.
As you know. ;)
I’m just Stupid Lucky that Stu’s calculator seems to put me on Dead Nuts every time. Or at least near-as-makes-no-difference in my shooting.
Honestly, I’m not sure I’m clever enough to tune around a weight tube. So if I decide I’m gonna have to go that route, I’m gonna hit you up for some help ;)
Well, they are bovines, just like goats and antelopes, but bison are certainly a different genus compared to buffalo and have many structural differences. People incorrectly call them buffalo, but a lot of people call every carbonated soft drink Coke. It doesn’t make it correct or the same thing.
And the only reason I mention the distinction is that someone may get the false impression that the gear recommended or proven effective on Bison would be the same as for a true buffalo, which is not the case.
GF, don't overthink it. This ain't rocket surgery!
