Depends on what you’re trying to do with it. FOC can create a noticeable arc in trajectory, but it can also act like an insurance policy on a bad shot that impacts bone. Not always, but sometimes. It’s not a cure-all, but it has its applications. I’m in the camp where a straight flying properly spined arrow is the main goal, but I like to play with different weight heads and inserts too. Having a long draw length helps too, what poundage are you pulling and what’s your draw length?

 

I’m usually somewhere between 74-80# and a 32”
Draw length…I find I struggle with tuning with higher foc and I think that’s mostly being at the end of a 250
Spine but if I keep
Things standard I get really good arrow flight

 

I shoot RIP TKO 250s with 225 up front and they tuned/shoot great. They have 19% foc. I’m 31.5”@75#. Using a lighter GPI shaft that’s still durable will make this much easier. If you need to go to 200 spine, victory is making RIP TKO in 200s at 10.6 or 10.7 GPI.

 

One thing I fight too is I like to say I’m not into speed but I do like speed and don’t want to end up with a 550+ grain arrrow…especially considering I hunt whitetail lol

 

FOC matters a lot for arrow flight. If you're using mechanicals, you don't need much. If you want to make a fixed blade fly well at distance, there are no diminishing returns.

FOC doesn't create more arc, weight does. Putting the weight where it matters increases stability. And beyond a certain point of stiffness and weight, FOC doesn't do much for bone unless you have really dense cattle bones.

30.5", 80#. I run 20%+. Cut the arrow as short as you can. You can get 200 spine arrows that are light enough easily. But 550 grains is nothing at our draw length and weight. You should be able to push a 600 grain arrow at 290.

 

what is your arrow length? ive never heard anyone actually reference foc in corilation with what type of broad head but i can see what your sayin....i fell like when i get too much weight up front at longer distances the back of my arrow seems to do a lot of fish tailing or parachuting and ive tried everything from a hight profile 3 fletch to a super low profile 6 fletch with tac 1.5s and i dont know if its just my arrows not stiff enough or whats goin on when it happens but itll do it with the bow tuned shooting bullet holes through paper

 

The benefit for me is that I don’t have to use vanes. I ran little tiny ones at 20 percent. Now I have EFOCD my way to 30 percent. Was able to totally get rid of vanes. Plus no drag! Arrow is also ultra quiet in flight.

 

As a long draw archer you're going to struggle to build a high FOC arrow without it being excessively heavy if you're not paying attention to GPI when choosing a shaft. RIP TKOs should be your first choice as a 250sp is only .1 GPI more than 300sp. With that being said, FOC is a big deal especially if wanting to shoot accurately at longer distances and maintain momentum. Most well respected people in the archery world agree that the sweet spot for FOC is somewhere in the 12-15% range. That's not difficult to achieve, even at your draw length.

 

Has anyone found foc to not be that big of a deal?

I had a lesson last summer at Lancaster Archery Supply to tighten my groups at 50 yards and beyond. I don't hunt beyond 30 yards, but I was thinking about 3D and TAC.
My coach, also a hunter said FOC isn't that important compared to KE.
And IMHO shot placement trumps all.
But I'm curious to see what everyone else has to say here. Again.

 

I had a lesson last summer at Lancaster Archery Supply to tighten my groups at 50 yards and beyond. I don't hunt beyond 30 yards, but I was thinking about 3D and TAC.
My coach, also a hunter said FOC isn't that important compared to KE.
And IMHO, shot placement trumps all.
But I'm curious to see what everyone else has to say here. Again.

Putting FOC and KE in the same sentence for the coach means he is talking about penetration and not what FOC is about. Your coach is 100% correct. FOC does not benefit penetration by itself.

 

Yes. Those of us that don't follow celebrities have long known it is not important.

 

I think it's important, it has to be. Think of what would happen if you shot the back end heavier than the front. Now the extremes that SOME YouTubers suggest is indeed probably not important. 15% is where I like to be. Lots of people have success around that 12% as well.

 

I try to get as much as I can, but it’s a balancing act at longer draw lengths.

 

Everything you need to know about FOC right here on a past thread
FOC facts and myths

The short version- Easton recommended range is best

 

its funny how there is so much different thoughts on FOC.

Here is what Joe Tapley states about FOC.
"If you don't want to plod through the section on drag then A Rough Guide to FOC tries to give an idea of why FOC is so important to the drag properties of an arrow. The ideal FOC value for arrow flight performance is 50% i.e. the arrow balance point is at the front of the arrow. In reality for OR archery the maximum practicable FOC is in the low 20's. The limiting factor is arrow speed." TOPICS ON ARCHERY MECHANICS (plus.com)


To the op, FOC is extremely important when it comes to arrow flight. The good thing is that most people don't have an issue with their arrow builds. The people that dont have issues are easy to spot. They are the ones that tell you FOC doesn't matter. hahahahaha.

This is for the people who don't think FOC matters. Build you an 8% arrow with straight fletch small vanes. tune it, Then install a wide two blade fixed broadhead. You will see the advantage of understanding FOC.

The meaning of F.O.C. is the location of the arrow's center of gravity, given in a percentage number past the center measurement.

 

Best way to know is build a few arrows one with high foc and one without, test yourself and see what gives you the smallest groups over a 4 day period, measure and shoot on a few calm days and really windy.
For the accuracy, then test for penetration with broadheads, I am a firm believer that if you test a arrow and it out penetrates another arrow 10 out of 10 times it will do the exact same thing through a big game animal, when testing with broadheads.

 

the only issue with trying to test penetration is there is nothing that will give accurate results, especially for on-meat performance

 

let's get back to some information. Im going to apologize now as this will be long.

First we need to understand what FOC is for and about. It is about arrow stabilization.

Lets start with what easton states.
"In the archery world, F.O.C. stands for “front-of-center.” FOC describes the percentage of the arrow’s total weight that is located in the front half of the arrow. The more weight that is located in the front half of the arrow, the more forward is the arrow’s center-of-balance.

The F.O.C. balance position of the arrow is one of the more important elements affecting the shape of the arrow’s trajectory curve. Ideal F.O.C is especially critical for target shooters participating in long-range shooting competitions operating under the Olympic Style rules, such as FITA Archery events.

While F.O.C is less relevant in some bowhunting situations (short-range shots), it can be critical in others (long-range shots, when shooting low-poundage bows and fixing trajectory issues at the range). It’s generally accepted among archery experts that a high F.O.C. will fly with good stability, but will shed its trajectory quicker and nose-dive. An arrow with low F.O.C. will hold its trajectory better, but can fly erratically. Easton recommends an arrow with 10-15% F.O.C. for hunting setups and optimal accuracy – especially at long distances."

If you notice, even Easton tells you that FOC is important. It's funny how the leader in Arrow Building tells us that, but the average Joe here on archery talk says no. Hahaha. It is funnier, and some pros go against Easton as well.

You need to read this as well. This has great info.TOPICS ON ARCHERY MECHANICS (plus.com)

Some of the confusion comes from people not understanding the Easton chart.

Easton-for target archery, an F.O.C. range of 7-15% indoors, and 10-15% outdoors, will fly with good stability,

Easton recommends a 10-15% F.O.C. for hunting setups requiring greater momentum, and optimal accuracy – especially for longer distance shots.

If you notice they are talking about arrow flight. Nowhere does Easton talk about penetration.

So where and when did FOC start to become a penetration enhancer? Dr Ed Ashby. The problem is he did all his testing with a trad bow when it came to looking at FOC. So what and why did he come to the conclusion that FOC increases penetration? let's look at the 2008 part 7 updates by Ashby. " Shaft flex has been shown to be a major factor in arrow penetration. This is easily demonstrated. Using a well tuned arrow having Normal FOC shoot several arrows into a new foam target at very close range, say 2 or 3 feet, and measure the average penetration. Now shoot those same arrows into the same target at 15 or 16 yards. Though they will have lost some velocity (and force) the arrows shot at the longer range will show greater penetration. This is because the Normal FOC arrows are still in extreme paradox at the close range, flexing to a greater degree than at the longer range. The greater shaft flexion increases the resistance to penetration. Their lesser degree of shaft flex at impact is the predominate reason Ultra-EFOC arrows show such an astonishing degree of gain."

As you can see, Ashby shows and tells us that impact flex degrades penetration. He also shows us how to test to look at this.

Compound bows shot with a release do not have arrow paradox. Our flex on a shaft is not like that of a bow shot with fingers. That means we could just shoot a stiffer arrow and remove even more impact flex. If we had two arrows with all factors being equal except the spine, the arrow with the stiffer spine would outperform.

You cannot find data anywhere that shows FOC increases penetration (except Ashby and his regurgitates). It hasn't been that many years since I was a regurgitator, but I got into the physics side of it.

Now @UglyJoe has a video about FOC, and It's been a while, but I think he shows it does help. However, in the anecdotal evidence I have with others, we haven't seen it.

I do think we use the word FOC to cover many things. If we add tip weight and we see an increase in penetration, was it the FOC or the added mass? Im going to tell you it is the added mass. But you can see how easy it is to say. I increased my FOC from 10% to 20% (That is a relative increase of 100% in FOC), and my penetration increased. Never mind the 150 plus gr (Just used a number) added to the arrow's total weight.

Let's pick on the pros. Tim Gillingham tells you FOC is meaningless. He also refuses to listen to anyone who shows him what FOC truly is—the center of gravity. He talks about the rocket man in a post the other day. He talked about how Darrel was talking about pitch and yaw. Time said why bother? We tune that out. Well, Tim is correct. We do tune that out. How do we tune that out? We adjust tip weight and fletchings. In other words, Tim is doing exactly what he says is stupid even to know about. Tim is affecting the center of gravity and pressure. He moves the center of pressure around, thus giving more control to the rear lever arm. Thus, he is using it to tune his setup.

By the way, Tim is a good person. I like picking on him, and yes, he returns the favor.

If you learn about the center of gravity and pressure and learn about lift, all of this will make sense.

Let's go back to Ashby's 12 penetration factors. 1 is structural integrity. 2 is flight. 3 is FOC. Yes, understanding FOC and what it's for can improve penetration. However, what the FOC did for you improved the penetration; it is not FOC by itself. 4 is broadhead. 5 is shaft diameter. (for today's bows and the energy we have, this is no longer a concern with compound bows for penetration) 6 is weight. so, as you can see, even Ashby is showing you that weight is not that important overall.

I dont care what arrow weight a person shoots. I dont even care what FOC you shoot. Your goal is getting as close to a perfect flight with whatever broadhead you are shooting. Put that with shotplacement, and you will have super on the table.

 

let's get back to some information. Im going to apologize now as this will be long.

First we need to understand what FOC is for and about. It is about arrow stabilization.

Lets start with what easton states.
"In the archery world, F.O.C. stands for “front-of-center.” FOC describes the percentage of the arrow’s total weight that is located in the front half of the arrow. The more weight that is located in the front half of the arrow, the more forward is the arrow’s center-of-balance.

The F.O.C. balance position of the arrow is one of the more important elements affecting the shape of the arrow’s trajectory curve. Ideal F.O.C is especially critical for target shooters participating in long-range shooting competitions operating under the Olympic Style rules, such as FITA Archery events.

While F.O.C is less relevant in some bowhunting situations (short-range shots), it can be critical in others (long-range shots, when shooting low-poundage bows and fixing trajectory issues at the range). It’s generally accepted among archery experts that a high F.O.C. will fly with good stability, but will shed its trajectory quicker and nose-dive. An arrow with low F.O.C. will hold its trajectory better, but can fly erratically. Easton recommends an arrow with 10-15% F.O.C. for hunting setups and optimal accuracy – especially at long distances."

If you notice, even Easton tells you that FOC is important. It's funny how the leader in Arrow Building tells us that, but the average Joe here on archery talk says no. Hahaha. It is funnier, and some pros go against Easton as well.

You need to read this as well. This has great info.TOPICS ON ARCHERY MECHANICS (plus.com)

Some of the confusion comes from people not understanding the Easton chart.

Easton-for target archery, an F.O.C. range of 7-15% indoors, and 10-15% outdoors, will fly with good stability,

Easton recommends a 10-15% F.O.C. for hunting setups requiring greater momentum, and optimal accuracy – especially for longer distance shots.

If you notice they are talking about arrow flight. Nowhere does Easton talk about penetration.

So where and when did FOC start to become a penetration enhancer? Dr Ed Ashby. The problem is he did all his testing with a trad bow when it came to looking at FOC. So what and why did he come to the conclusion that FOC increases penetration? let's look at the 2008 part 7 updates by Ashby. " Shaft flex has been shown to be a major factor in arrow penetration. This is easily demonstrated. Using a well tuned arrow having Normal FOC shoot several arrows into a new foam target at very close range, say 2 or 3 feet, and measure the average penetration. Now shoot those same arrows into the same target at 15 or 16 yards. Though they will have lost some velocity (and force) the arrows shot at the longer range will show greater penetration. This is because the Normal FOC arrows are still in extreme paradox at the close range, flexing to a greater degree than at the longer range. The greater shaft flexion increases the resistance to penetration. Their lesser degree of shaft flex at impact is the predominate reason Ultra-EFOC arrows show such an astonishing degree of gain."

As you can see, Ashby shows and tells us that impact flex degrades penetration. He also shows us how to test to look at this.

Compound bows shot with a release do not have arrow paradox. Our flex on a shaft is not like that of a bow shot with fingers. That means we could just shoot a stiffer arrow and remove even more impact flex. If we had two arrows with all factors being equal except the spine, the arrow with the stiffer spine would outperform.

You cannot find data anywhere that shows FOC increases penetration (except Ashby and his regurgitates). It hasn't been that many years since I was a regurgitator, but I got into the physics side of it.

Now @UglyJoe has a video about FOC, and It's been a while, but I think he shows it does help. However, in the anecdotal evidence I have with others, we haven't seen it.

I do think we use the word FOC to cover many things. If we add tip weight and we see an increase in penetration, was it the FOC or the added mass? Im going to tell you it is the added mass. But you can see how easy it is to say. I increased my FOC from 10% to 20% (That is a relative increase of 100% in FOC), and my penetration increased. Never mind the 150 plus gr (Just used a number) added to the arrow's total weight.

Let's pick on the pros. Tim Gillingham tells you FOC is meaningless. He also refuses to listen to anyone who shows him what FOC truly is—the center of gravity. He talks about the rocket man in a post the other day. He talked about how Darrel was talking about pitch and yaw. Time said why bother? We tune that out. Well, Tim is correct. We do tune that out. How do we tune that out? We adjust tip weight and fletchings. In other words, Tim is doing exactly what he says is stupid even to know about. Tim is affecting the center of gravity and pressure. He moves the center of pressure around, thus giving more control to the rear lever arm. Thus, he is using it to tune his setup.

By the way, Tim is a good person. I like picking on him, and yes, he returns the favor.

If you learn about the center of gravity and pressure and learn about lift, all of this will make sense.

Let's go back to Ashby's 12 penetration factors. 1 is structural integrity. 2 is flight. 3 is FOC. Yes, understanding FOC and what it's for can improve penetration. However, what the FOC did for you improved the penetration; it is not FOC by itself. 4 is broadhead. 5 is shaft diameter. (for today's bows and the energy we have, this is no longer a concern with compound bows for penetration) 6 is weight. so, as you can see, even Ashby is showing you that weight is not that important overall.

I dont care what arrow weight a person shoots. I dont even care what FOC you shoot. Your goal is getting as close to a perfect flight with whatever broadhead you are shooting. Put that with shotplacement, and you will have super on the table.

well put

 

I can’t comment on the Nose Dive effect. The testing I’ve seen they just reference more erratic arrow flight with very high FOC.

Look, 20% FOC is not much out of the Easton range. We all know arrow tuning is a bell curve…so a little further out on the curve only slightly degrades accuracy…maybe its not enough for an avg shooter to tell.

I do think those Flight tests ( distance shooting) debunk the claims of the very high FOC guys like Ranch Fairy And Ashby.

The fact that arrows in the 7%-16% range flew furthest tells us that those arrows not only fly better but also carry more energy. Carrying more energy equates to better penetration.

 

I can’t comment on the Nose Dive effect. The testing I’ve seen they just reference more efreatic arrow flight with very high FOC.

Look, 20% FOC is not much out of the Easton range. We all know arrow tuning is a bell curve…so a little further out on the curve only slightly degrades accuracy…maybe its not enough for an avg shooter to tell.

I do think those Flight tests ( distance shooting) debunk the claims of the very high FOC guys like Ranch Fairy And Ashby.

The fact that arrows in the 7%-16% range flew furthest tells us that those arrows not 9nly fly better but also carry more energy. Carrying more energy equates to better penetration.

 

Glider planes travel further on the same amount of fuel, but don't have as much KE as a fighter jet. Pick a small car and a big truck and see which travels further on a gallon of gas.

Your statement made too many assumptions without clarifying your controls.

 

At every distance out to 100 yards my arrows enter my target level.

 

I always thought about setting paper at 100 yards and shooting through it to see what it looked like. Thinking about it is as far as I got. haha

 

That's a great observation and IMHO what many people (even here on an archery forum) never grasp. Just because one thing works great for some archers doesn't mean it will be great for everyone. I shot aluminum arrows and still do for hunting because they have a TON of benefits people don't know about. BUT I have a 27.5 inch DL and can shoot higher DW's so they work well. But if you have a 31 inch DL to get the spine right with an aluminum arrow they get heavy really quick so what's really good for me stinks for a longer draw bowhunter setup the same way. So it's about the whole setup and your spec's.

So FOC is similar to that. With today low GPI arrows and the extra power stroke of the longer DL it's not as hard to get a higher FOC arrow for a long draw but many of us have tested the FOC thing and the gains are not as big as people want you to think they are.

Especially for the OP. If you have a long DL and aren't killing a Hippo in Africa there is no reason in the world why you would need a 200 grain point and high FOC.....in your case (with a long DL you'll be fine for anything in N. American with the recommended 10-15% FOC and about any arrow weight unless you have a #40 DW and then you might still be fine depending on the bow, BH choice and arrow weight........lol.

All a 200 grain high FOC head will do for you is make a simple setup harder to achieve. All to gain maybe in 2% penetration gains on a system where you have 20% more than you'll ever need.

 

the issue is people think FOC is all about penetration. It’s not. Took me years to figure that out. So if we are talking to people about FOC and penetration then I agree. It is not worth looking at.

FOC is about arrow stabilization. So it is 100% worth looking at. We must put content with it to know.

 

My biggest reason for higher FOC is to enable myself to use less vane to accomplish the same task. I like smaller vanes because they tend to have less drag and retain velocity better at distance. I do understand that the difference is minor, so you all don't need to tell me how it doesn't make enough difference to tell. Same way I feel about clocking arrows and fletching left or right. Even if no archer on the planet can shoot or measure the difference, the difference is still there. Why fight it?

 

Has anyone found foc to not be that big of a deal? I can see some pros to it but as a long draw guy it’s almost a losing battle to have a tough arrow that I can run some weight up front without going to a 200 spine ?

Showbox jiofi.local.html tplinklogin​

Not always, but sometimes. It’s not a cure-all, but it has its applications. I’m in the camp where a straight flying properly spined arrow is the main goal, but I like to play with different weight heads and inserts too.

 

It would be an easy test for you very high FOC guys to prove...or disprove.

Set up a set of identical arrows...
Then make up a set of identical .243 metal weights that you can glue into the shaft at different spots to increase FOC....maybe 15%, 20% and 25% or even higher

all arrows will be identical in weight, fletch, etc- the only variable being the FOC if you use a hooter shooter [shot by an archer introduces another variable]

Then set up the HS at an angle of 45 -50 deg...and just see which arrow flies the furthest. This tells you which arrow not only flies the best...but also carries more energy better. Easy..if you have a shooting machine.

I would do it...but I already know the answer from the testing by CN Hickman and others in the book; Archery, the Technical side. Hint; the best was the same as the Easton recommended range. It's possible there might be a new discovery on this as those tests were done with much older equipment.

 

It would be an easy test for you very high FOC guys to prove...or disprove.

Set up a set of identical arrows...
Then make up a set of identical .243 metal weights that you can glue into the shaft at different spots to increase FOC....maybe 15%, 20% and 25% or even higher

all arrows will be identical in weight, fletch, etc- the only variable being the FOC if you use a hooter shooter [shot by an archer introduces another variable]

Then set up the HS at an angle of 45 -50 deg...and just see which arrow flies the furthest. This tells you which arrow not only flies the best...but also carries more energy better. Easy..if you have a shooting machine.

I would do it...but I already know the answer from the testing by CN Hickman and others in the book; Archery, the Technical side. Hint; the best was the same as the Easton recommended range. It's possible there might be a new discovery on this as those tests were done with much older equipment.

How far it flies is not the test. The shaft staying horizontal longer allows for a gliding effect, which is why flight archers use low FOC. That is not the measurement of keeping speed. A chronograph measures speed. That way the human element is already irrelevant.

Fun fact, I do this testing all the time! And a stable arrow keeps the speed. There's almost no difference in speed between the bow being tuned and being out of tune for high FOC arrows. If the arrow is stable, it is faster than unstable arrows.

FOC is about increasing that margin of stability, so it stays in the static stability condition longer and recovers faster in the dynamic stability condition.

 

Removed

 

I find it odd that the heavier arrow and lighter arrow penetrated nearly identically when we know that this is not the case on animals. It would be interesting to try this when shooting something that is not designed to stop something.

 

Don’t overthink it. Worry about tuning and arrow flight first and foremost. I don’t know what you’re pulling, but If you’re a long draw guy, build a properly spined arrow that’s between 450-500 grains and your foc will be plenty enough for great arrow flight and penetration.
if you’re looking for a target setup only, shoot for a properly spined arrow between 360 and 400 grains.

 

Don’t overthink it. Worry about tuning and arrow flight first and foremost. I don’t know what you’re pulling, but If you’re a long draw guy, build a properly spined arrow that’s between 450-500 grains and your foc will be plenty enough for great arrow flight and penetration.
if you’re looking for a target setup only, shoot for a properly spined arrow between 360 and 400 grains.

FOC is part of tuning and getting arrow flight. Both hunting and targets.

 

Its true, FOC is about best most accurate arrow flight…ask any pro

 

I have John Dudly telling you to be around 280fps with a fixed. above this, the flight is not as good. Wonder why.

Tim Gillingham shoots 300fps min and likes 320fps. wonder why he doesn't like a fixed broadhead.

You only need to listen to the pros talk. They will give you the answers. people act like the pros no it all, they dont. Heck, just talk to them a lot of times you will get different answers.

I talk with Joel Maxfield almost on a daily basis. Even his thought process seems odd to me. I know mine is to him. But Joel understands FOC. He thinks just as I do, we shouldn't talk about it by saying FOC. We should be teaching about the center of gravity. If I remember correctly that is how Hickman talks about it in that book you have. Joel has an fps set point. He believes everyone should be as close to 280fps or above. He teaches that no matter what the draw weight or length, your arrow should be 6.2gpp to a max of 7.2gpp. His main broadhead is the rage. He doesn't see why everyone doesn't shoot that broadhead. However, he will shoot a fixed broadhead. Just not at the distances he will shoot his rage. Because of the limits he has set he has limited his FOC.

You are one of my favorites on ArcheryTalk, but you are bullheaded. That might not be your fault. Move out of California.

 

That's a great observation and IMHO what many people (even here on an archery forum) never grasp. Just because one thing works great for some archers doesn't mean it will be great for everyone.

Or just use the right fletching............maybe that's why I don't see these issues you talk about? I never try to skimp on fletching for a hunting arrow with a fixed head. 3 vanes 3" long and no issues whatsoever.

Something about a pot and a kettle.

Especially for the OP. If you have a long DL and aren't killing a Hippo in Africa there is no reason in the world why you would need a 200 grain point and high FOC.....in your case (with a long DL you'll be fine for anything in N. American with the recommended 10-15% FOC and about any arrow weight unless you have a #40 DW and then you might still be fine depending on the bow, BH choice and arrow weight........lol.

All a 200 grain high FOC head will do for you is make a simple setup harder to achieve. All to gain maybe in 2% penetration gains on a system where you have 20% more than you'll ever need.

When was anything said about "200 grain high FOC heads?" OP mentioned potentially needing a 200 spine shaft at his draw weight and draw length. This is the part of this debate that always cracks me up. Just because someone mentions the AT trigger word "FOC" doesn't mean they're talking about going down the RF rabbit hole.

 

Heavier is NOT better... I would agree with Joel Maxfield, John Dudley and MFJJ they have some content on this subject.

 

Heavier is NOT better... I would agree with Joel Maxfield, John Dudley and MFJJ they have some content on this subject.

I do lots of work with Joel. It's all under PNLTESTERS. There is a balance point. If a person is a feeder hunter (I hunt feeders), they are normally at 18 to 20 yards. The weight and trajectory are not that big of a concern. You could hunt with a 1000gr arrow. It's when you start reaching out that trajectory matters.

Now, remember that there is more to it than just trajectory. You still have to look at KE. A heavy arrow shot from the same bow will always have more penetration at a distance. Again, that doesn't mean a lighter arrow won't do the job.

It's all about balance and what we are doing.

By the way, Joel will never say a heavy will not improve. What he tells people is that the gain due to bows being so much better at transferring energy to arrows is that the gain we get in adding arrow weight may not be enough to matter when you look at velocity loss.

 

I found this on Easton's website...

"While F.O.C is less relevant in some bowhunting situations (short-range shots), it can be critical in others (long-range shots, when shooting low-poundage bows and fixing trajectory issues at the range). It’s generally accepted among archery experts that a high F.O.C. will fly with good stability, but will shed its trajectory quicker and nose-dive. An arrow with low F.O.C. will hold its trajectory better, but can fly erratically. Easton recommends an arrow with 10-15% F.O.C. for hunting setups and optimal accuracy – especially at long distances."

 

I found this on Easton's website...

"While F.O.C is less relevant in some bowhunting situations (short-range shots), it can be critical in others (long-range shots, when shooting low-poundage bows and fixing trajectory issues at the range). It’s generally accepted among archery experts that a high F.O.C. will fly with good stability, but will shed its trajectory quicker and nose-dive. An arrow with low F.O.C. will hold its trajectory better, but can fly erratically. Easton recommends an arrow with 10-15% F.O.C. for hunting setups and optimal accuracy – especially at long distances."

I have never seen this at 100 yards or less.

The issue is all arrows will nose-dive. We dont see it because we are not high enough above the ground and are not shooting far enough. However, if you want to see it, shoot any arrow at any fps or FOC at a 50-degree angle up. It will stick in the ground.