Anyway we can point the finger back at each other forever and I’m not sure there’s a right answer. We just each have to choose what limitations we’re comfortable with. I don’t want to have to pass on a 30yd quartering to shot and you probably don’t want to have to pass on a 65 but maybe it’s 70yd shot. I doubt your faster lighter setup gives you any more advantages than my quieter heavier setup does. To each their own I reckon.
I agree we shouldn't point fingers at each other - to each their own. That's been my entire point of my comments. Fast and light arrows and mechanicals have downsides. So does heavy arrows - the balance of which is up to the shooter. They aren't a magic wand that just allows for any shot presentation. We just need to agree on reality - If Ranch Fairy and Ashby won't give in to reality I'll keep beating this drum to counter their bad information to whoever will hear it.
Personally, I'm about done with quartering to shots. Not because of bone but because of the more limited error to the back of the animal. I'd be extremely hesitant on deer, elk or antelope to take a 30 yard quartering to shot. Especially with an arrow moving 240 fps. Hard no for me but not because of bone - because of guts.
Sounds like we have similar energy - here's some food for thought. Your arrow will have more KE & M at the target than mine in the neighborhood of 18% or so. Giving you around 24% more momentum and 2% more KE. Pretty sweet right?
However, you've given it 22% more time to react. Some of that is taken up by the sound and reaction time - leaving as a percentage your arrow having
46% more opportunity for the animal to move.
So the question is - if the animal decides to move. How far will it move? At only 30 yards the ability for the animal to drop with gravity (head up) would be 4.8" more than mine. If it decided to spin and takeoff like a track sprinter at the sound of the shot - it could move 2.7" more than mine. That's a large error considering vital size. Since the animal started moving pre impact you're also losing more energy and momentum.
Given this information - I feel much more comfortable with my fixed blade faster setup at 30 yards as I'm significantly more likely to hit the animal where intended and it will still handle some bone. Both have tons of energy and momentum (more than Ashby ever did) and neither setups are guaranteed to get through a knuckle. If I hit near side bone and don't get in - then then that is the absolute best case of the worst cases. That animal will most likely live. If you gut shoot it, it will most likely die. If I gut shoot it - at least it was a 3 or 4 blade and I might just put it down quicker. If I was you I'd still stick to that 20 yard range.. but to each their own.
Just to be really clear - I don't advocate for everyone to shoot 294 fps with a fixed head. If you're form isn't the best or you don't have much time for practice slow it down to 280 fps. And of course not everyone can get this fast without getting to light. It's a balancing act.
So I don’t think it’s fair to say a heavier arrow is less accurate. It’s the yardage estimation that lacks accuracy.
We misuse about our terms in archery. There's a difference between accuracy and precision - see below. Range error by definition is poor accuracy as it misses the intended mark. Precision is the ability to group well. You can definitely group well if you bow is setup well.
It seems illogical to me to up your weight just to put a head with the least structural integrity (mechanical), since we already agreed that that was more important than weight. And aren’t heads with wider cuts less accurate?
To be clear - I'm not really advocating for mechanicals. But logically it makes more sense than increasing your energy & momentum and then decreasing your cut size from the average hunter who doesn't have issues with penetration anyway. Again, we're limiting the speed limit of our diesel to the Tacoma. Also, there's plenty of mechanicals out there now with durability. IE Sevr and others. Sevr even passed the Ashby testing. A Sevr will cut more and fly better than a long fixed head while still penetrating a
minimum of 7 inches into a cape buffalo and holding up. Not a concern durability wise. Mine didn't fare quite that well but penetrated 10" or so on a elk. I'll stick to fixed unless I bump up arrow weight and energy.
Wider cut heads can be less accurate if given than the equivalent surface area. But a 150 vented Magnus Black Hornet will fly better than their new Magnus 150 grain single bevel all day every day and cut much more. A vented Grim Reaper Micro Hades 3b 150 grain will absolutely fly better than a Tuffhead 3b 150 all day every day. Given the same tolerances in straightness then it's just surface area - put a bigger plane on the front and it won't fly as reliably. Add vents and it will fly better. Make the head shorter and it reduces the area and it will fly better. An Exodus Swept 125 will fly better than say a Stinger Killer Bee and Valkyrie will fly exponentially better than a Ranch Fairy 3 blade.
I can keep going if you like - but this is reality. Heavier arrows get there slower, give the animal much more time to react allowing them to move further and be accelerating away faster but will hit harder. A massive 3:1 or just long unvented broadhead will not fly as well in the heat of the moment as nearly any other design on the market. Personally, if I want to shoot 20 & in I'll just shoot trad equipment. Until I get much better at hunting, I'll stick to the compound to fill the freezer.