This invention relates to arrow heads and more particularly to an arrow head specifically designed for use in fishing. 
Bow and arrow fishing is becoming an increasingly popular sport.  It has been found, however, that the arrow head or point for use in fishing must be different from points used in target shooting and other types of hunting because of special considerations.  These considerations include the water itself which is struck by the arrow, as well as the nature of a fish after it has been pierced by the arrow and undergoes subsequent struggles when attempts are made to remove it from the water.  Most known fish points or fishing arrow heads have outwardly extending barbs on them to inhibit withdrawal of the point and arrow after it has passed through the fish or becomes imbedded in the flesh of the fish. 
The barbs themselves, however, create other problems which detract from their usefulness.  For fish points or arrow heads where the barbs are in a permanently extended configuration, the barbs frequently cause planing or deflection of the arrow when the arrow enters the water.  It is difficult to anticipate the exact amount of deflection which is going to take place or to anticipate in what direction this deflection will occur; so that substantial inaccuracies in shooting result.  This can be very frustrating to a fisherman who has little or no control over such deflection. 
Another disadvantage of permanently extended barbs is that they tear a relatively large hole in the skin and flesh of the fish.  In some instances, the flesh is sufficiently weakened that the barb is not capable of holding in the flesh as the fish thrashes about; and the fish tears free even though a barb is used. 
Two patents which are directed to fishing points of the types commonly used today are the patents to Podufal U.S. Pat.  No.  2,904,338; and Shure U.S. Pat.  No.  3,164,385.  Both of these patents disclose arrow heads or fish points in which a wire type of barb is permanently extended when the arrow is in flight, enters the water and ultimately penetrates the fish.  These permanently extended barbs do cause some planing of the arrow when it enters the water; and in addition, they cut a relatively large hole in the fish as the point penetrates the fish. 
Other patents which disclose fishing arrow heads or fish points in which the barbs are fully extended during the flight of the arrow, and consequently are subject to the same disadvantages mentioned in conjunction with Podufal and Shure, are the patents to Schmidt U.S. Pat.  No.  2,725,656; Doonan U.S. Pat.  No.  3,022,077 and Lint U.S. Pat.  No.  3,168,313.  These latter patents have an additional capability of collapsing or closing the barbs to permit withdrawal of the arrow from the fish without causing further tearing of the flesh.  The disadvantages of Podufal and Shure during the flight of the arrow to the ultimate fish target, however, are present in all of these patents since the barbs are extended during the arrow flight. 
Prior art patents which recognize some of the problems created by extended barbs and attempt to overcome this problem and still provide a barb which prevents withdrawal of the arrow after it hits the target are the patents to Doonan U.S. Pat.  No.  2,859,970; Nelson U.S. Pat.  No.  3,036,395; Yurchich U.S. Pat.  No.  3,014,305; and Hendricks U.S. Pat.  No.  3,600,835.  All four of these patents disclose some means for holding barbs in close proximity to the shaft of the arrow while it is in flight and while it passes through the water.  The barbs then are released by mechanisms built into the point after the arrow penetrates the target.  The structures of the penetrating points of these four patents, however, are all relatively complex.  This causes the points to be expensive and subject to failure. 
Two other prior art patents which are directed to fishing arrow heads and which attempt to overcome the problems of the patents mentioned above are Gottschalk U.S. Pat.  No.  2,599,626; and Butler U.S. Pat.  No.  2,540,387.  Both of these patents also are directed to relatively complex arrow head structures.  In Gottschalk, the point has a diagonal hole drilled through it and a curved, elongated barb with an enlarged head on it is placed into the hole.  The barb may or may not lie relatively close to the arrow during flight since it is held in place by frictional forces in the hole.  If it does not lie close to the shaft, the point of Gottschalk is subject to all of the disadvantages of the prior art mentioned above for those patents where an extended barb can result in planing and the tearing of large holes in the flesh of the fish.  If the barb does lie close to the shaft in flight (and this is simply a matter of chance) deflection of the arrow when it hits the water is substantially minimized.  The structure of Gottschalk, however, requires the drilling of a hole through the arrow head point and additional assembly steps to insert the barb and bend it to keep it from falling out.  Once the barb is in place, it is necessary to tie a string around the barb to pull the arrow back out of the fish, as illustrated in FIG.  5. 
The Butler patent is directed to a highly specialized arrow head having a pivoted barb near its point.  The barb normally lies back against the remainder of the point which has a relatively flat surface at an acute angle.  Consequently, when the point hits the water, deflection or planing of the head invariably occurs.  The pivot is subjected to a great deal of pressure when the barb is subjected to reverse forces; and because the pivot is located very near the point, significant potential weaknesses exist as a result of the inherent small dimensions of the pivot and the closeness of the pivot to the end of the barb which are necessary in order for the barb to lie against the remainder of the point while the arrow is in flight and is passing through water and the ultimate fish target. 
It is desirable to provide a simple, inexpensive fishing point which overcomes the disadvantages of the prior art.  Such a point should minimize unwanted deflection of the arrow as it enters and passes through water into the target, while also minimizing the tearing of flesh of the target.  At the same time, however, the barb should exhibit maximum holding characteristics when it is subjected to a reverse pull through the struggle of the fish and removal of the fish from the water.