ForkHorn

POB, Suppressors only suppress the sound from the gases coming out of the barrel immediately in front of you. (Saving the ears). Most calibers used for big game shoot bullets at supersonic speeds that create their own sonic boom as the bullet passes through the air. So only the sharp crack as you pull the trigger would be gone. You would still be able to hear the bullet traveling through the air and making impact.

POB, I hadn't thought of or viewed it in that matter. I think it could be a good idea for the simple sake of saving some of our ears. How many of you guys actually wear ear protection while out hunting? Even though I know I should I dont. Ringing ears is never a good thing.

182 3/8

This isn't directed at anyone, rather just my feelings on long range shooting in general. I'm not sure why people will put the time and effort into learning how to shoot at extremely long distances with a bow (that are in most cases a sketchy shot in the field), instead of learning how to get closer or trying to get closer. For example, in a spot and stalk situation make it your goal to get 30 yards away for a shot instead of 50. That way when you get hung up or he gets hung up a little farther out than expected it's at 50 yards not 70. I guess I just don't understand the fascination with the long distance stuff even with rifle hunters. On the tv hunting shows I see guys taking 300 + yard shots regularly and for no reason. Telling me you can't get any closer than that is telling me you're not a very good hunter. Granted, some of those were necessary given the situation but a lot of them were not. In the end it's just your mind set. Guys with traditional bows routinely take stuff 20 yards and under. 30 yards is considered a long shot. Learning how to hunt differently and more effectively to get closer is just a lot more rewarding to me personally.

The problem is the new trend toward super lightweight arrows for a flatter trajectory. When you are flinging the lightest arrow combination you can, it doesnt matter if its going 300fps. You're not going to get the same penetration as a heavy arrow going 200fps. Other keys to penetration are using a 2 bladed broadhead, and trying to get weight farther forward of the middle of the shaft. With the right setup you can get the penetration you need. Dr. Ashby has some great studies on arrow penetration. They can all be found on the web.

For 60 yards that is a dang good shot. Congratulations!

Great information guys, I really appreciate it. Love the pics oneshot, it makes me want to get out there right now. Right now I have tentatively decided on ordering a Samick Sage ($129) from 3 rivers archery in either 35lb or 40lb, with the intent of upgrading to 50lb limbs (only $69 for limbs) after I practice for awhile. The Sage has got great reviews everyhwere I have looked online, with many people saying it's the best value in traditional archery, and a lot of bow for the money. I went down to Sportsmans the other day and shot a 30lb version and it felt great. Silky smooth. I'm pretty excited about diving into this after Christmas. It looks like I will be able to get started fairly inexpensive and work from there. It seems like tuning the bow and finding the right spine for arrows is pretty critical and something I should not skimp in putting time into. Do you all shoot instinctive? It seems the key concept is focus on a spot and "aim small miss small".

Cool pics. The bodies on those bucks seem massive.

nosajpo, Barnes recommends something like an 1800 minimum velocity for expansion for the tsx, and slightly lower for the ttsx. It's important that you know how fast your stuff is moving before you shoot at the longer ranges. Not only for expansion reasons, but it helps when trying to figure out drift. I always print out a trajectory table with velocities and wind drift and tape it to my buttstock. I wouldn't hesitate to use the .223 on coues with a tsx load if I shot within the effective range.

I'm not sure how I feel about a highly frangible bullet on a big game animal. Even if it is a coues. I have been working up a load with the barnes tsx for coues. The tsx is solid copper and will retain almost 100% of it's weight as well as expand reliably. The .223 needs every bit of help it can get. The barnes tsx is a proven deer killer in .223 (lots of whitetails killed back east with them) as long as you keep the shots relatively close and stay disciplined. I just don't think something advertised as "frangible" would be good in such a small caliber unless you're shooting yotes. A bad shot might turn into a lost buck. Just my thought process. Google barnes tsx .223 and look at some of the deer being killed with them. Keep the frangible blow up on impact stuff for varmint calling.

Sorry for the multiples posts, but I would just like to clarify that I am not criticizing the Arizona Game and Fish. I just enjoy the science behind it and am only trying to better understand and help elaborate. This is nothing more than observational, and I hold the Arizona Game and Fish in high regard.

Low success rates = more tags and hunter opportunity as well. Short hunts, and lots of people in a limited area (with limited bucks) all add up to limited success. Everything factors in to the number of tags set each year. Archery is still over the counter (except strip) because of the super low success rate.

Scooter, You're right that managing for less bucks and more tags seems counter intuitive. They are managing for a certain number of deer that the land can theoretically hold. A carrying capacity. (Usually based off habitat conditions, although other factors can come into play) They reach that goal through tag manipulation, and another pre set goal of hunter opportunity.So how do they come to the conclusion that less bucks = more tags? The way they are looking at it is through fawn reproduction. The more does = more fawns each year = more bucks to shoot next year. Maintaining skewed buck to doe ratios (high doe numbers)production will be greater and more deer will require harvesting to maintain deer at carrying capacity. Let's go through an example. Assume 100% fawn survival for the sake of a simple example. EDIT: My little table isn't coming out right. Hopefully you can still read and understand it. It shows a gap between the examples when I edit it but on the forum it shows up mashed together. Example 1 Example 2 Carrying capacity = 120 deer Carrying Capacity 120 deer Buck to doe ratio = 1:1 Buck to doe ratio 1:5 Percent Fawn crop = 100% Percent Fawn Crop = 100% Spring Population = 120 Spring Population = 120 (After hunts, before fawns drop) Males = 60 Females = 60 Males = 20 Females = 100 Fawns Born = 60 Fawns Born = 100 Male Fawns = 30 Female Fawns = 30 Male Fawns = 50 Female Fawns = 50 Excess Deer = 60 Excess Deer = 100 Total males = 90 Total females = 90 Total males = 70 Total females = 150 (Total population) Population after harvest Population after harvest Males = 60 (90-30) Females = 60 (90-30) Males = 20 (70-50) Females = 100 (150-50) Harvest is 30 antlered males Harvest is all 20 antlered males plus 30 male fawns Using this example, 20 more bucks were allowed to be killed using the buck to doe ratio of 1 to 5 (example 2) vs the buck to doe ratio of 1 to 1 (example 1). Without doe hunts, they are just building a larger surplus of does every year, or they may be factoring in the fact that many fawns don't make it to adulthood in AZ. The problem with either sex tags is that given the choice to shoot a buck or a doe, people will almost always choose to shoot a buck anyway.

Scooter, The buck to doe ratio is by design. The AZGFD had been managing deer with the goal of 10-20 bucks per 100 does. Just recently the Arizona Deer Association lobbied to get that increased to 20-30 bucks per 100 does. Here's a link to a letter written about it - http://azdeer.org/presidents_%20message_Hunt_Guidelines_2011.pdf Compare this to Texas where they often manage for a 1 buck to 2 doe ratio or even a 1 to 1. The lower the buck to doe ratio = more tags.

Just posted this in the other thread but figured it is just as relevant here. In several places (like Alberta) it is illegal to have a loaded gun while in transportation. IE, driving from one glassing spot to the next, your gun must be completely unloaded. If a warden stops your moving vehicle at any time and your gun is loaded, you're in violation. Whether or not it would cure road hunting problems in Arizona I do not know. Whether or not it would be a good thing, I do not know. Some good points were made in favor of road hunting. It's not a personal choice I make, but then again I'm young and still have the ability to hike forever. I'm assuming that this would divide a lot of hunters. But it's just something to think about.

In several places (like Alberta) it is illegal to have a loaded gun while in transportation. IE, driving from one glassing spot to the next, your gun must be completely unloaded. If a warden stops your moving vehicle at any time and your gun is loaded, you're in violation. Whether or not it would cure road hunting problems in Arizona I do not know. Whether or not it would be a good thing, I do not know. Some good points were made in favor of road hunting. It's not a personal choice I make, but then again I'm young and still have the ability to hike forever. I'm assuming that this would divide a lot of hunters. But it's just something to think about.

FWIW, the biggest problem with Condors is that they don't even sexually mature until 6 or 7 years old, and then a female will only lay a single egg every other year. Not to mention that they mate for life. There has only been 20 or so documented times of lead bullet fragments found in Condor stomachs in Arizona. So you're right Lark. Odds are that it doesnt happen very often. The problem with Condors is that they need every little bit of help they can get. It's not like their population can boom back to where it was in a single year. Every death can effect the population. Copper bullets are not a bad thing. What I don't understand is the reasoning not to use them? They kill just as good as lead, and if they can potentially help a rare creature, why the heck not?

Interesting discussion. A lot of this is hearsay. If you ever get the chance read "Prey Availability and Selection by Mountain Lions in the Aravaipa-Klondyke Area of Arizona" by Stan C Cunningham. It's a study done by a rather well known and great Arizona Game and Fish biologist that is now one of my professors at Arizona State University. He also took part in the Three Bar study mentioned which is another worthy read. Any study published in a peer reviewed journal is completely scientific and unbiased. A lot of interesting facts and conclusions can be discerned from both studies but neither study should be taken as an all concluding decision. What is true for one area or instance will never be true for another. That being said, one of the many things that can be gleamed from the Mountain Lion study is that lions seemed to choose Cattle and Javelina over deer. Why? My guess is its a lot easier to catch a cow or a javelina than it is to sneak up on an elusive Coues deer. While deer did make up a fairly significant portion of overall biomass consumed (second behind cattle) thats because they weigh a lot more than Javelina or the countless small game caught. As far as the Three Bar goes, yes deer numbers went crazy high (as many as 118 in less than a square mile) inside the fence. Yes, predation has an effect on that. In my opinion, stress is a much larger factor (stress can be fear of a predator attack). Deer inside the enclosure had little to no stress placed on them from outside factors. Not all fawns that died outside the enclosure were the result of being killed by a predator. Predators can be key, but the outside factors (like water) are even more key. The reason why private Texas Ranches (low and high fenced) can produce the numbers of deer that they do are because of how intensely they can manage a lot of those factors. (Including predators at times) Public land is a whole different animal. Predators are and always will be a large issue, and for good reason. However, Arizona has many other (and much bigger) problems that are hurting our wildlife that do not include predators. Fragmentation, habitat loss, and drought come to mind pretty quickly. Isn't this stuff fun? I can't get enough of it.

Just reading some of the comments, the number of uneducated statements astounds me. As hunters, our biggest battle is educating the general public. Their thought process is completely different than ours. Not a single one of those people understand that hunters account for and fund 99% of conservation efforts. Which includes all animals. Nor do they realize the management practices that need to be implemented and the reasons why. It's things like this that only give me even more motive in college, and what I plan to do after college. (A Wildlife and Restoration Ecology major at ASU)

I like the smiling kid pictures just as much as the giant buck pictures. Great job! They're hooked.

This buck is just plain awesome. Love the character. Congratulations!

Hoyt recurves as well? Looking to expand my archery experience past compounds..

Anybody using a version of the newer time lapse cameras? I think they would be useful to cover some spots that you could never use a conventional trail cam on due to location, lack of trees close by, etc. Another big advantage would be loss prevention. Either using one to monitor your existing trail cams, or just sticking it far enough away from your location that anyone coming in would never see it to steal it.

Lark, the next gun show is september 24th-25th at the mesa convention center I believe. The trigger has a little bit of take up (which I prefer), but is not too heavy at all in my opinion. Maybe 4 1/2 pounds? Its smooth as silk, and breaks clean. I have a couple hundred rounds through mine now. EDIT: There is also a gun show at the phoenix fairgrounds September 10th-11th

I use national geographic's Topo! Arizona. Its a $50 computer software that lets you customize topo maps of anywhere in Arizona, and you can print as much as you want.