-
The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
-
We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules
United blood tracks data on fixed blade vs mechanical
- Thread starter stone1
- Start date
-
- Tags
- arrow foc penetration ranch fairy
Kurt
Well-Known Member
I've only cleanly gut shot two deer so far. One I found the same day, 10ish hours later still alive, I recovered her. One I found the next day with help from the bluejays, dead and coyote chewed.
Kurt
Well-Known Member
Do your homework and apply what you learn and you can expect to find a truly gut shot deer. Do not do your homework, or do not apply what you know, and hope is all your left with.
Its a gamble but if the arrow smells like guts, you will not find it that night IME unless you also got the major artery as well. So I just hope the yotes don't find it and I have a successful recovery the following day.
Agree completely. My last sentence was poorly worded. I meant that without the raw data it is hard to draw conclusions specific to the apparent discrepancy that the OP asked about. There is definitely information that can be gleaned from the data presented, even more so if also we had the raw data.
Since we are morphing into talking about gut shots, remember, not all gut shots are equal. A gut shot deer with the shot location that is more forward will die sooner than one shot in the intestines. Each arrow will have the tell tale deposits, but the time-to-death can be vastly different.
I urge everyone, whether they shoot fixed or expandable heads, to read John Jeneanney's (UBT) books.
He has probably trailed more deer, and documented the search data, than just about anyone.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
I urge everyone, whether they shoot fixed or expandable heads, to read John Jeneanney's (UBT) books.
He has probably trailed more deer, and documented the search data, than just about anyone.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
The same could be said for mechanical broadhead shooters. FOC doesn't just apply to fixed blades. FOC results in more kinetic energy. There is no challenging that higher FOC results in deeper penetration and harder impact, it is not disputable.
What is disputable is one broadhead vs another result in a higher kill rate. I believe the main variable in this is POI.
Is a single bevel more forgiving in the event you hit a front shoulder?
Probably, being it is the only broadhead that rotates upon impact and carries its kinetic energy at a higher rate.
Does a mechanical cause a bigger entrance wound?
Probably, considering its blades opened up usually are 2"+.
The bottom line is which can you shoot more accurately and trust more.
If you're shooting inside 20-30 yards I don't think you can beat a single bevel for penetration. BUT, with a smaller cut, there is also a chance you miss main valves/ vitals on a shot that you may have hit with a bigger cut.
I believe a big reason people have penetration issues with mechanicals is that they are shooting a light arrow coupled with low draw weight/ short draw length.
I've yet to -not have- a passthrough with a 580grain arrow 30in draw @ 72lbs with a swhacker. The day I do I'll bitch about it and change. lol!
Kinetic energy is determined by mass and velocity, nothing to do with FOC.
I’m going to disagree with your assessment that POI is the biggest deciding factor. It might be, but that can’t be gotten from this study. POI wasn’t in the data you provided, so it can’t be relevant to this discussion.
If you’re saying that in general POI is most important, sure, we all aim at the good spot, and if you don’t, you’re weird. Having said that, if we’re all aiming at the good spot, and you hit the good spot, I’m willing to bet that two holes will be a bigger deciding factor in recovering deer than the difference between 1” cut and 2” cut.
I also don’t think “shoot which one is accurate” is right either. Deer move. I can stack arrows in a 12” circle from 100 yards on most days. If we’re using conjecture, I’ll say Only shooting at deer inside of 30 yards has a greater correlation to recovery Than broadhead choice(accuracy), amount of practice(accuracy), bow tune(accuracy), and any other factor related to accuracy. This would mean it’s more important than any of those factors, if we’re holding recovery rate as the goal.
I don’t understand why anyone still says “where you hit deer matters”. Every predator in the animal kingdom That doesn’t use poison knows if you go for the bits that stop oxygen from going to the brain, you’ll kill your prey.
That’s what concerns me about studies like this, and the discussions around them. They’ll never get anywhere because of two things: people can’t intuit statistics, and they confuse correlation with causation. Maybe a third to add is not understanding the implications of a correlation.
I often wonder if introducing children to statistics in their formative years and continuing to do so throughout their schooling is now necessary in the Information Age. With 7billion people, and the ability to consume information on a by the minute basis, the world is overwhelming.
Off my soap box.
With a compound, Shoot something razor sharp that weighs 500-600 grains over 250fps inside of 30 yards. Amazing to me this is debated with any fervor.
The point of this post was to discredit the statistic. The pass-through values don't even equal 100% yet it is referenced as if it has validity. You have people in this thread stating that there must be missing data or "xyz", yet individuals are still referencing it and picking specific parts of it that fit their narrative. People blindly follow and quote a statistic that if they simply analyzed it, would realize there is no value.
If a portion of this study is missing data, guess what? The study is now valueless. This is what we call skewed or inconclusive results, AKA, ****.
Never did I once use the word "aim". Everyone aims at the right spot. You can aim at a dime. Does that mean you'll hit a dime?
I said POI. Not hypothetically aiming. POI is the determining factor to whether your animal dies. Not whether there are two holes.
Regarding your 2 hole assessment. There is over 1000 places you can put 2 holes through a deer or hog and it will live. You'll never see it again.
"I’m going to disagree with your assessment that POI is the biggest deciding factor. It might be, but that can’t be gotten from this study."
So you just disagree, then say it might be, then reference a study with values that don't equate 100%. This is my exact point. Sheep.
Then you rant condescendingly as if you're above average intelligence and the median population is so much more uneducated and unintelligent then yourself.
Even better yet,
"With a compound, Shoot something razor sharp that weighs 500-600 grains over 250fps inside of 30 yards. Amazing to me this is debated with any fervor."
Yet here you are debating.
Man, this is too good.
This has been a civil discussion guys, Let's work to keep it that way. I would hate to have to shut this down.
I'm thinking a pass through with a mechanical or a fixed through the pump or lungs is a pretty sure thing. One hole is a little more iffy but not much if you are diligent. A pass through on a lower leg, not so much. From the data you provided it appears there are a lot of lousy unethical hunters taking shots too far, or haven't practiced enough, or not keeping their heads sharp. More wounded than dead is a pretty sad picture. I'm not saying I haven't wounded deer, but positive it's more like 5% or less because I can only recall 4 and have way more than a hundred kills.
Amen. I once took a hunter safety class and the instructor was proud of the fact that he had recovered 3 out of 5 deer the previous year with his bow. He didn't like me after I told him he's exactly the type of person who should NOT be teaching any hunting class (in private of course).
no condescension. I’m only halfway educated. And certainly nothing I learned in formal education has anything to do with my perception of the world.
my point is simply that the pass through has such a strong correlation to recovery, that even once you controlled for all other variables(assuming you could), that it should get more attention than it does. That’s the idea - just because you study is incomplete as you say, it doesn’t mean that you can’t get something useful from it.
I’m taking point of impact, as you’re describing it, as a constant for deer hit forward of the diaphragm. I understand the difference between point of aim and impact. I simply mean it’s sort of a given that if you hit deer in the right spot, and get enough damage, they’ll die. We’re all discussing what enough damage is, and how best to cause it. POI doesn’t do much for us when we assume it’s good.
you have to control something - you seem to pick up on this in the incomplete nature of the study. You’re very right there, and smell the flaws. My point is that there isn’t much in our control in regards to equipment choices, that should correlate to POI. The things that decide that have nothing to do with broadhead style or weight. At least they shouldn’t.
controlling for POI(assuming you hit the deer on one side of its body, in front of the diaphragm, I am willing to bet the farm that a complete passthrough will show a stronger correlation with recovery than will the difference between a 1” cut and 2” cut(difference between most small fixed heads and wide cut mechanicals). That’s all.
not sure where sheep comes into play. I gave you, and the data, the benefit of the doubt. It’s entirely possible your idea might be right. That’s good science, not ruling out things because you don’t have complete data.
I wasn’t being condescending. I have zero formal education in statistics. I am bitter and resentful about that fact. I would be much better prepared to work through life I had. I have spent a lot of my own free time to remedy that. I’m offering a suggestion to fix that for all of us.
sorry if you took it to be demeaning you or what you want to believe in any way.
I hope my track record around here speaks for itself that I’m on board for good discussions, try to help others, and have fun. I do have a bit of a contrarian streak though, and generally look for the loudest voice in the room, seeking things to resolve. I’m sorry if you take personal offense to that - none is meant.
I’m not even really sure what you’re disagreeing with me on. But I’m happy to work through it!
Tom Karrow
Active Member
"An animal with an expandable lodged in them will have a lower survival rate." I would suggest this is highly debatable given the propensity for fixed blades to close which therefore reduces cutting surface.A sharp fixed is just that, it will continue cutting as long as movement occurs. In both cases of course, impact and penetration with bone might reduce longer term cutting as movement is reduced compared to softer tissue. Given these thoughts I would suggest a fixed blade lodged in an animal will do more damage than an expandable.
Tom
I think it was @EricS that brought this up first but it may be worth repeating again. Sorry @BackSpasm, you were first!
IF the data's source comes from United Blood Trackers documented results and we assume that they are only called in on difficult track jobs that are possibly (if not likely) the result of less than perfect point of impacts (whatever the reason) then it is likely that the data set reported could be skewed toward the non-recovery side of the entire population of archery shot whitetails.
IF the data's source comes from United Blood Trackers documented results and we assume that they are only called in on difficult track jobs that are possibly (if not likely) the result of less than perfect point of impacts (whatever the reason) then it is likely that the data set reported could be skewed toward the non-recovery side of the entire population of archery shot whitetails.
Last edited:
Maybe I didn't convey it, but what I meant was, an expandable, being more likely to remain inside the critter, is more likely to result in fatality in game not recovered by the hunter.
I don't want my broadhead to remain in the animal. I want 2 holes and hopefully the entire arrow is laying right there where I shot him in order for me to analyze the arrow.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
Sniper4hire
Well-Known Member
I would have thought the recovery rate was much higher, but since dog tracking became legal in my state of Michigan, It seems to jibe with these numbers. I think a lot of deer get hit that hunters don't admit too not recovering. Got dog tracking buddies that could literally go 24/7 if they could handle all, over the state.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2018
- Messages
- 3,929
It’s hard enough to convince yourself of where you truly hit a deer if you don’t have video to look at. Also, you will rarely, I dare say never, have someone deem their shot marginal then lock down all the pertinent info on where the deer was and where the deer went then get out of there and call in a tracking dog. It makes it tough on the dog and handler when the information is not that great and a good bit of time had elapsed while folks wander all over hell and creation looking.
On top of that, the easy to find deer get found without the dog getting called in.
On top of that, the easy to find deer get found without the dog getting called in.