Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: 'Ancient' Terminal Ballistic testing

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    119
    Feedback Score
    0

    'Ancient' Terminal Ballistic testing

    I ran across this little video and I know it does not really belong here (no firearms), but on the other hand it does (terminal ballistic testing). I has most of the ingredients that we look at with respect to the effects of slinging lead or copper, just this time it's with stone and wood.

    It made me think of this sub-forum and thought I would share it. Just a little informational tidbit of the hunters and warriors that roamed these lands in 'ancient' times. Not all that long ago actually.

    In ancient times hunters often tipped their arrows with very small stone points. Oddly these points are found all across North America and similar stone blades (called microliths) were used in Europe. Because of their small size collectors here in America theorized that they were used for hunting birds, earning these tiny points the nickname "bird points". But recent studies have proved that these tiny points were actually used for hunting big game. Always a skeptic, I often wondered how a tiny stone point could penetrate deep enough to be effective on large game. So I set up a test in which I shot a freshly killed deer with lightweight reed arrows tipped with tiny stone bird points that I chipped out of flint. Did the ancient people who used these weapons have enough punch to bring down a deer?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsqrlaIef2o

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,762
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    People often think that just because we have more technology today that we are smarter. I only think we've had longer to work things out, as each century goes by. Interesting info!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    52
    Feedback Score
    0
    I have to admit that I am not following his thinking here. It seems obvious to me that a small arrow-head would penetrate deeper than a large arrowhead.

    Such small arrow-heads seem well suited to the low pull weight of the bows used.

    Even Robert E. Howard once had one of his characters comment on the small flint arrow-heads used by the Picts.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    338
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by grendelbane View Post
    I have to admit that I am not following his thinking here. It seems obvious to me that a small arrow-head would penetrate deeper than a large arrowhead.
    A bigger arrowhead would have more mass, and thus more momentum, and thus penetrate more deeply. Of course, there is a LOT more to the equation with edged weapons such as point profile, point thickness, and edge angle. So, not an exact science. Given the weakly powered bows of the time, I'm sure that what they were using was the best technology of the day. Flatter arrow trajectory, and a shorter travel time to target. The higher velocity of the lighter arrow cuts better too. After all, a thrown knife penetrates much more deeply than one that pushed into the target. People who have to kill on a daily basis tend to be pretty pragmatic about their equipment selection.
    Last edited by S. Galbraith; 10-31-12 at 19:41.
    Insert impressive resume here.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    52
    Feedback Score
    0
    A bigger arrow-head would have more mass, but is also cutting a wider wound channel, as well as travelling at a lower velocity, assuming the same bow.

    A firearms analogy would be 5 grains of powder propelling a .45 caliber 230 grain bullet versus 5 grains of powder propelling a 9mm 124 grain bullet. The smaller bullet would penetrate deeper.

    Or so it seems to me. I am not an archer, neither on the internet or on TV.

    The video does show that the small arrow-head is definitely doing a good job. Less penetration might not reach the vitals, and more would just be wasted. Unless your victim was a grizzly bear, of course.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    338
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by grendelbane View Post
    A bigger arrow-head would have more mass, but is also cutting a wider wound channel, as well as travelling at a lower velocity, assuming the same bow.

    A firearms analogy would be 5 grains of powder propelling a .45 caliber 230 grain bullet versus 5 grains of powder propelling a 9mm 124 grain bullet. The smaller bullet would penetrate deeper.

    Or so it seems to me. I am not an archer, neither on the internet or on TV.

    The video does show that the small arrow-head is definitely doing a good job. Less penetration might not reach the vitals, and more would just be wasted. Unless your victim was a grizzly bear, of course.
    The smaller, thinner microlith arrow heads would not be appropriate for thick skinned animals like bears. Most of the native American literature on the subject states that in the case of large animals such as bear or mammoth, they used a much bigger arrow/spear head as the small arrow heads would literally shatter when they impacted the thick hide.
    Insert impressive resume here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    8,848
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by S. Galbraith View Post
    A bigger arrowhead would have more mass, and thus more momentum, and thus penetrate more deeply. Of course, there is a LOT more to the equation with edged weapons such as point profile, point thickness, and edge angle. So, not an exact science. Given the weakly powered bows of the time, I'm sure that what they were using was the best technology of the day. Flatter arrow trajectory, and a shorter travel time to target. The higher velocity of the lighter arrow cuts better too. After all, a thrown knife penetrates much more deeply than one that pushed into the target. People who have to kill on a daily basis tend to be pretty pragmatic about their equipment selection.
    I will admit up front I am not any sort of bow expert. But a larger head would have more friction once penetrated and would slow faster(?). It would have more momentum but also a lot more friction. An ice pick penetrates more easily than a broad sword.

    I would think that the larger head etc for large game like mammoth is to provide a stronger head to penetrate hide, grissel (however you spell it, etc). You need to break through the "armor" first, which is where the more massive heads would come in handy.

    Maybe these "bird points" were more about using a material that could penetrate through hide etc. Stone being more powerful than wood.

    Is this thinking wrong?


    --
    • formerly known as "eguns-com"
    • M4Carbine required notice/disclaimer: I run eguns.com
    •eguns.com has not been actively promoted in a long time though I still do Dillon special
    orders, etc. and I have random left over inventory.
    •"eguns.com" domain name for sale (not the webstore). Serious enquiries only.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    3
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    The smaller heads, so I've been told, were used because arrow removal was easier and made for easier reuse. The larger barbed heads were for fighting because they cause damage when pulled out.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    338
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by chadbag View Post
    I will admit up front I am not any sort of bow expert. But a larger head would have more friction once penetrated and would slow faster(?). It would have more momentum but also a lot more friction. An ice pick penetrates more easily than a broad sword.

    I would think that the larger head etc for large game like mammoth is to provide a stronger head to penetrate hide, grissel (however you spell it, etc). You need to break through the "armor" first, which is where the more massive heads would come in handy.

    Maybe these "bird points" were more about using a material that could penetrate through hide etc. Stone being more powerful than wood.

    Is this thinking wrong?


    --
    The natives were limited to what they could effectively use with weak bows, so if they wanted decent trajectory and quick travel time to their target they would have needed to use as light of an arrow as possible. Bird points may have been all they could effectively use and ranges of 25yrds or so.

    As far as larger arrow head go, yes you have a little more friction with the thicker blade, but the higher momentum of the head and arrow "might" make up for it. Whether it be clovis points, or arrow heads from a later period, the natives had a lot of larger and heavier arrow heads. If the tiny bird points got the job done every time, why did they go to the trouble to make so many larger arrow heads which you can find all over the place?

    If they could launch the larger arrow head effectively, then the larger arrow head would be more durable than bird points. Flint and obsidian are very brittle, and if a bird point were to strike a thick hide with any deflection angle what so ever it would be under a lot of lateral stress. Most likely, shattering the thin point.
    Insert impressive resume here.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    7,153
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by chadbag View Post
    I will admit up front I am not any sort of bow expert. But a larger head would have more friction once penetrated and would slow faster(?). It would have more momentum but also a lot more friction. An ice pick penetrates more easily than a broad sword.

    Is this thinking wrong?

    No. The smaller point will have the greatest penetration, the larger will do more internal damage. Weight and speed are also critical factors, as well as configuration (including sharpness) of the point itself.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •