Is Ashby's #1 goal flawed?

[BCHunter]

From the Ashby report: "The goal of every bowhunter should be to achieve the most penetration possible on an animal, with the intent of a full passthrough. This should come as no surprise. Findings of the Royal College of Veterinary Science concluded that a passthrough shot is more lethal than having the arrow remain in the animal. The balance of the medical community agrees; while still in place, pressure of an imbedded object upon the tissues retards blood loss. Only trained medical professionals should remove an imbedded object, and then only once measures to deal with the increase in blood loss are available. An arrow shaft remaining in the wound channel applies pressure on the tissues, retarding blood loss. From a bowhunter’s perspective this is less effective than an arrow that passes all the way through. At the very least an arrow shaft remaining in the wound channel increases the time before the animal expires. This means longer tracking distances with less blood trail."

From BCHunter: Let me start out, this has nothing to do with breaking bone. I believe a lot of people put too much emphasis on breaking through the shoulder joint when they should be worrying about hitting the giant mass of soft tissue on a deer. Now lets continue....

The statement on from the Ashby report is quite misleading. An arrow is not the same size from the tip to nock, therefore it's like stabbing a deer with a sword, then ripping out most of the blade and only keeping the small middle shaft in a deer. So a giant 3 blade expandable that makes it 2/3 of the way through a deer will have significantly more unobstructed wound channel than a small 2 blade that passes all the way through. Another way to think about it is that if you will bleed way more from a turkey load to the chest than if you have a full pass through with a 22lr.

I'm not saying giant flappers are for everyone, but for those of us shooting 70lb compounds and crossbows, I don't buy the heavy arrow with a 2 blade hype. Obviously I'm not an expert, and haven't shot 1,000 animals, but I feel like the whole report and heavy arrow movement is based off of flawed logic. Not trying to offend anyone, bring on the civil discussion

 

[kyler1945]

.So a giant 3 blade expandable that makes it 2/3 of the way through a deer will have significantly more unobstructed wound channel than a small 2 blade that passes all the way through. Another way to think about it is that if you will bleed way more from a turkey load to the chest than if you have a full pass through with a 22lr.

unless the small 2 blade severs major plumbing and the giant 3 blade doesn’t.

unless the 22lr severs major plumbing, and the bird shot doesn’t.

internal or external bleeding.

multivariate analysis versus univariate.

not disagreeing with your premise that if you assume that an arrow in an animal is what the whole data set rests on, you’ll get inconsistent results with any tests you perform. But I disagree that that premise is grounded in reality.

 

[BCHunter]

unless the small 2 blade severs major plumbing and the giant 3 blade doesn’t.

unless the 22lr severs major plumbing, and the bird shot doesn’t.

internal or external bleeding.

multivariate analysis versus univariate.

not disagreeing with your premise that if you assume that an arrow in an animal is what the whole data set rests on, you’ll get inconsistent results with any tests you perform. But I disagree that that premise is grounded in reality.

Ok, I should have said, with the same shot placement in soft tissue.

Is there anywhere in soft tissue that it is better to have a full pass through with a smaller wound channel than 2/3 penetration with a wound channel 3 times the size? The only thing I can think of is a quartering away deer that you hit the heart, but even if you don't get to the heart you are still going to decimate liver and lungs with a mechanical.

 

[Plebe]

Last year a hunter was shot in the back of the head and neck by another turkey hunter (using a muzzleloader) in WNY. Thank God not a pass through and little enough penetration that he survived without paralysis or brain trauma.

That same load vs turkey head / neck....done deal.

Penetration matters.

I have, however, seen catastrophic damage from errant shots when an arrow breaks in a deer and is displaced by that deer's subsequent running. The shots were likely lethal as is, but the subsequent trauma also likely sped up the result.

I have also seen where penetration results in a kill despite not passing through, where less penetration would not have been lethal.

Ideally you want penetration plus large cut/wound channel plus proper placement. The flaw I see is folks relying too heavily on any one of those aspects without consideration of them all.

 

[Country]

Do what works for you. I don't think it's flawed logic at all though. He has done so much extensive research proving his points. I've seen major damage done by 2 blade mechanicals. I've also seen them fail to penetrate. There's not 1 perfect setup for every single situation. It's just minimizing the chance of failure.

 

[BCHunter]

Last year a hunter was shot in the back of the head and neck by another turkey hunter (using a muzzleloader) in WNY. Thank God not a pass through and little enough penetration that he survived without paralysis or brain trauma.

That same load vs turkey head / neck....done deal.

Penetration matters.

I have, however, seen catastrophic damage from errant shots when an arrow breaks in a deer and is displaced by that deer's subsequent running. The shots were likely lethal as is, but the subsequent trauma also likely sped up the result.

I have also seen where penetration results in a kill despite not passing through, where less penetration would not have been lethal.

Ideally you want penetration plus large cut/wound channel plus proper placement. The flaw I see is folks relying too heavily on any one of those aspects without consideration of them all.

Ideally a giant 3 blade would fly just as good as a mechanical when you torque the bow with that 150" buck coming in

 

[BCHunter]

Do what works for you. I don't think it's flawed logic at all though. He has done so much extensive research proving his points. I've seen major damage done by 2 blade mechanicals. I've also seen them fail to penetrate. There's not 1 perfect setup for every single situation. It's just minimizing the chance of failure.

It's definitely about minimizing the chance of losing a deer, on the vast majority of a deer it is better to have bigger blades.

I think somebody needs to make a 2" three blade fixed head so I can see how good it flies out to 30 yards

 

[krub6b]

One point that matters to those hunting from above is the lower exit wound a passthrough offers. while this doesn't affect the lethality of the shot it is likely to affect the blood trail and can make recovering game easier. a prime example would be a close range, ie steep angle, quartering away shot that hits the offside shoulder. with any head this should be a lethal shot, but with a high entrance wound, there could be a considerable distance covered before blood hits the ground without a lower exit wound. and if there is a shaft in the entrance wound than there is something for clotting agents to start sticking too.

which brings in to the conversation quality of blade edge and the clean cutting ability of a sharp broadhead. clean cuts will bleed more and that requires a sharp edge. having a quality blade material that takes and holds an edge is important. and taking the time to sharpen your edge is critical.

shot placement is still going to be the most important factor in any bowhunting scenario regardless of equipment used

 

[kyler1945]

Ok, I should have said, with the same shot placement in soft tissue.

Is there anywhere in soft tissue that it is better to have a full pass through with a smaller wound channel than 2/3 penetration with a wound channel 3 times the size? The only thing I can think of is a quartering away deer that you hit the heart, but even if you don't get to the heart you are still going to decimate liver and lungs with a mechanical.

This is why this argument will never be settled. No one has the time, money, and setting to complete the proper analysis. You can infer some things from the data we have. But people suck at intuiting statistics.

You are correct that it is "possible" that having a larger wound channel halfway through vitals might lead to faster immobilization of a deer than a smaller wound channel passing completely through. First, I'd argue that the ability to set the proper experiment up to prove it is nearly impossible. Then I'd argue that keeping all other variables constant to prove this point, would only prove the point. Once you introduce all the other variables that dictate hitting/wounding/eventually killing/recovering the deer, the difference between these two things may largely disappear.

This could all also support your original point. Or it could not, depending on perspective.

What I've gathered anecdotally, and what I think that the studies show (at least to me, I'm certainly not in that fellow's head), is that two holes positively correlate with faster death, and greater recovery rates. This doesn't mean that two holes CAUSE those things. It just means that all the things that come along with two holes, add up to faster death and recovery rates, most of the time.

 

[BCHunter]

This is why this argument will never be settled. No one has the time, money, and setting to complete the proper analysis. You can infer some things from the data we have. But people suck at intuiting statistics.

You are correct that it is "possible" that having a larger wound channel halfway through vitals might lead to faster immobilization of a deer than a smaller wound channel passing completely through. First, I'd argue that the ability to set the proper experiment up to prove it is nearly impossible. Then I'd argue that keeping all other variables constant to prove this point, would only prove the point. Once you introduce all the other variables that dictate hitting/wounding/eventually killing/recovering the deer, the difference between these two things may largely disappear.

This could all also support your original point. Or it could not, depending on perspective.

What I've gathered anecdotally, and what I think that the studies show (at least to me, I'm certainly not in that fellow's head), is that two holes positively correlate with faster death, and greater recovery rates. This doesn't mean that two holes CAUSE those things. It just means that all the things that come along with two holes, add up to faster death and recovery rates, most of the time.

Alright, so how about this?

Saying that an arrow shaft is going to put pressure on the wound channel and be a large factor for why you need to have a pass through is faulty logic that shouldn't be the first thing you read in the report. The amount of the hole that is clogged up is a tiny fraction of the wound channel.

Is that fair?

 

[kyler1945]

Also,

I generally agree that the information we have was based on work done at randomly chosen starting points by people with certain ideas in their heads. I consider myself a "first principles thinker". It's caused me a ton of grief in life and communications, relationships in particular. When someone has a problem, or issue, or a plan, and want my feedback, I struggle. Not because I'm not willing to help. It's because I want to get as far underneath what they're trying to accomplish, and work my way up to their starting point. In doing this, you find that people are "starting from the wrong point", or "thinking about things from the wrong perspective", or "placing emphasis on the wrong priors, or allowing their bias to choose them before starting".

All that is great. But at the end of the day, we have to realize why most communication breaks down - I am not You. That's it.

We have to give credit to the work that is done, and use it in ways that are helpful to us. We could break down his motives, or starting points as an academic exercise, but then what? The data stands alone, even if why he did it, or how he designed his research are flawed.

I don't disagree that it's an odd entry point. It may not be provable, or even matter to begin with.

I also agree that 'heavy arrow movement' is not only dumb, but not based on anything remotely resembling reasonable thought.

But so are most of the arguments against it.

I've attempted a couple of times to try and dispel some of the nonsense around this topic. It's not possible in online discourse. Instead, I found a more valuable way to help folks. I took what I was able to understand from much of the research done, added a fairly large sample set of anecdotal evidence I've been witness to, and offered a guide for "the best way to kill a deer with a compound bow". It doesn't waste time with the minutiae of each individual issue. Instead, it looks at bowhunting as a whole, and for 80% of people, will eliminate a huge amount of grief in trying to kill deers. Is it the answer for everyone? Nope. There's lots of folks who actually take the time to study what's out there, and try to reach some conclusions. They don't need my help. For everyone else, poking two holes in the ribcage of a deer with a razor sharp broadhead is the focus.



I shoot 500-575 grain arrows. I shoot small cut on contact, very very sharp, two blade broadheads. I keep a large expandable in my quiver. Why? If I have to launch a prayer at a deer I've already shot, I want as much cutting potential as possible. Why? Because that's important when you add in the variables of random unknown distances, moving animal, already wounded animal, etc. It's not nearly as important when a deer is standing inside of 30 yards waiting for my first shot. Would I shoot it with a mechanical under those circumstances? Sure. But not if I have the option of a small cut on contact head available...

 

[kyler1945]

Alright, so how about this?

Saying that an arrow shaft is going to put pressure on the wound channel and be a large factor for why you need to have a pass through is faulty logic that shouldn't be the first thing you read in the report. The amount of the hole that is clogged up is a tiny fraction of the wound channel.

Is that fair?

If you make the assumption that the arrow being inside the wound channel will not impede blood loss enough to impact speed of death or recovery rates materially, sure, I would agree that it doesn't make sense to include it.

But are you basing that assumption on something you know to be true, borne out by evidence, or is it your intuition? I can see why you think what you think. But I don't agree or disagree, because I have no compelling evidence to support either stance.

I'm going to join you in making an assumption. And that is that Ashby wouldn't make that claim without at least some supporting evidence. But then again, giving him that benefit of the doubt could be dumb. I don't know.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

From the Ashby report: "The goal of every bowhunter should be to achieve the most penetration possible on an animal, with the intent of a full passthrough. This should come as no surprise. Findings of the Royal College of Veterinary Science concluded that a passthrough shot is more lethal than having the arrow remain in the animal. The balance of the medical community agrees; while still in place, pressure of an imbedded object upon the tissues retards blood loss. Only trained medical professionals should remove an imbedded object, and then only once measures to deal with the increase in blood loss are available. An arrow shaft remaining in the wound channel applies pressure on the tissues, retarding blood loss. From a bowhunter’s perspective this is less effective than an arrow that passes all the way through. At the very least an arrow shaft remaining in the wound channel increases the time before the animal expires. This means longer tracking distances with less blood trail."

From BCHunter: Let me start out, this has nothing to do with breaking bone. I believe a lot of people put too much emphasis on breaking through the shoulder joint when they should be worrying about hitting the giant mass of soft tissue on a deer. Now lets continue....

The statement on from the Ashby report is quite misleading. An arrow is not the same size from the tip to nock, therefore it's like stabbing a deer with a sword, then ripping out most of the blade and only keeping the small middle shaft in a deer. So a giant 3 blade expandable that makes it 2/3 of the way through a deer will have significantly more unobstructed wound channel than a small 2 blade that passes all the way through. Another way to think about it is that if you will bleed way more from a turkey load to the chest than if you have a full pass through with a 22lr.

I'm not saying giant flappers are for everyone, but for those of us shooting 70lb compounds and crossbows, I don't buy the heavy arrow with a 2 blade hype. Obviously I'm not an expert, and haven't shot 1,000 animals, but I feel like the whole report and heavy arrow movement is based off of flawed logic. Not trying to offend anyone, bring on the civil discussion

In my opinion you are right to an extent and wrong and I say that because a) with a shot gun blast you do not have one penetration you have 10’s or more. I personally saw a friend shot in the chest by a .38 it deflected and ended up stopping under his shoulder. Was there blood? Yes was there a ton of it like when a 30.06 passes through a deer? No.
Further more single bevel broadheads twist while performing that penetration even on straight pass through. I say all that because even though an arrow is narrower than the opening from the broadhead, it still applies pressure to the effected tissue which slows the flow of blood. A clean pass through is unobscured and the blood flows freely from a thinner sharper slice (I say sharper because heavy single bevels retain blade edge after impact where mechanicals and thin fixed blades tend to dull as they pass into tissue). Add in that tissue can stick to the arrow which gives it a non bleeding surface to adhere to so even a larger entry wound can close up around the arrow shaft. In a clean pass through it is blood on blood and it takes a while to heal up (think of a clean slice from a knife and how much your finger bleeds even when you wrap your shirt around it.) My mother runs an emergency clinic and we keep paramedics on site at my work when we do new hire physical assessment. I’m not a professional on anything medical but I definitely consider my mother and one of the paramedics a professional in medical related traumas. I have casually asked both of them about removing knife blades or objects from stab/shooting victims and they both have a similar answer- do not do it. Even doctors in hospital do not remove those objects until they are in a surgery prepped scenario. So I’m civilly going to claim Ashby to be right in this regard.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

From the Ashby report: "The goal of every bowhunter should be to achieve the most penetration possible on an animal, with the intent of a full passthrough. This should come as no surprise. Findings of the Royal College of Veterinary Science concluded that a passthrough shot is more lethal than having the arrow remain in the animal. The balance of the medical community agrees; while still in place, pressure of an imbedded object upon the tissues retards blood loss. Only trained medical professionals should remove an imbedded object, and then only once measures to deal with the increase in blood loss are available. An arrow shaft remaining in the wound channel applies pressure on the tissues, retarding blood loss. From a bowhunter’s perspective this is less effective than an arrow that passes all the way through. At the very least an arrow shaft remaining in the wound channel increases the time before the animal expires. This means longer tracking distances with less blood trail."

From BCHunter: Let me start out, this has nothing to do with breaking bone. I believe a lot of people put too much emphasis on breaking through the shoulder joint when they should be worrying about hitting the giant mass of soft tissue on a deer. Now lets continue....

The statement on from the Ashby report is quite misleading. An arrow is not the same size from the tip to nock, therefore it's like stabbing a deer with a sword, then ripping out most of the blade and only keeping the small middle shaft in a deer. So a giant 3 blade expandable that makes it 2/3 of the way through a deer will have significantly more unobstructed wound channel than a small 2 blade that passes all the way through. Another way to think about it is that if you will bleed way more from a turkey load to the chest than if you have a full pass through with a 22lr.

I'm not saying giant flappers are for everyone, but for those of us shooting 70lb compounds and crossbows, I don't buy the heavy arrow with a 2 blade hype. Obviously I'm not an expert, and haven't shot 1,000 animals, but I feel like the whole report and heavy arrow movement is based off of flawed logic. Not trying to offend anyone, bring on the civil discussion

Also perfect shot placement matters. All arrows are capable of blood and killing an animal when you hit nothing but tissue. Which is why shot selection and placement are critical. I hunt heavy arrows with single bevels. It’s not because my old set up didn’t work when I made a great shot. It’s because it didn’t work when an animal ducked the string, or the wind effected my shot, or on those days that I just plain screwed up from excitement. Those are the scenarios when heavy arrow high foc single bevels shine. If I were a perfect archer and could control all scenarios involving my shot, it wouldn’t matter if I used 400 grain arrows with mechanicals, however I am realistic about my ability as well as how many factors I cannot control- and that lead me to single bevel heavy arrow builds. But man they definitely cost more!

 

[rutjr]

I don't know. I know two holes bleed more than one hole. I love Rages but every deer I've shot with them didn't pass thru and when I opened them up they would be full of blood. Recovery would have been easier if the blood were on the ground instead of in the animal. I can't help but think the exit hole would have let all that blood out.
I also can't help but think of the energy it takes at impact when the arrow punches the mechanical into the animal to get the mechanical to open. The deer run like their on fire and I believe it's from that initial punching from the mechanical.
The other thing is deer are edgy and fast. I don't think they actually duck the arrow as much as they load to spring. The bone breaking comes in when the animal isn't in the same spot as when you released your arrow.
I've only shot deer with Rages but this year the fairy dust got me. We'll see how it goes.

 

[BCHunter]

I don't disagree that it's an odd entry point. It may not be provable, or even matter to begin with.

I also agree that 'heavy arrow movement' is not only dumb, but not based on anything remotely resembling reasonable thought.

But so are most of the arguments against it.

I guess I can concede that it doesn't matter if he says it, the data behind the dead animals is most important.

This obviously opens up a whole different can of worms.

http://www.seafwa.org/26Pedersen_et_al_163-166.pdf

If you make the assumption that the arrow being inside the wound channel will not impede blood loss enough to impact speed of death or recovery rates materially, sure, I would agree that it doesn't make sense to include it.

But are you basing that assumption on something you know to be true, borne out by evidence, or is it your intuition? I can see why you think what you think. But I don't agree or disagree, because I have no compelling evidence to support either stance.

I'm going to join you in making an assumption. And that is that Ashby wouldn't make that claim without at least some supporting evidence. But then again, giving him that benefit of the doubt could be dumb. I don't know.

Having a study where the same deer was shot in the same spot with 2 different broadheads is impossible, but now try killing it twice with the same broadhead. Once with the arrow fully penetrating the skin on both sides, but still in the deer, and once with it passing fully through...

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

I don't know. I know two holes bleed more than one hole. I love Rages but every deer I've shot with them didn't pass thru and when I opened them up they would be full of blood. Recovery would have been easier if the blood were on the ground instead of in the animal. I can't help but think the exit hole would have let all that blood out.
I also can't help but think of the energy it takes at impact when the arrow punches the mechanical into the animal to get the mechanical to open. The deer run like their on fire and I believe it's from that initial punching from the mechanical.
The other thing is deer are edgy and fast. I don't think they actually duck the arrow as much as they load to spring. The bone breaking comes in when the animal isn't in the same spot as when you released your arrow.
I've only shot deer with Rages but this year the fairy dust got me. We'll see how it goes.

If you get everything tuned in and flying right, you’ll never go back lol at least in my experience.

 

[Wmihunter]

I’m going with 4 blade single bevel 585 grain arrow. Checked arrow drop back 530 grain and it was 3” at 40 yards and 1.5” at 30. That isn’t much for extra momentum and all momentum is not the same . Animals move. My hope is that I can penetrate heavy bone and if I hit back at least I have 4 blades so animal dies quicker and I have more blood on the ground! I’ve overanalyzed this a bit too much


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nutterbuster]

I killed something like 5 deer last year with a 23", 350 grain arrow topped with a $1.50 chinadermic. I've killed deer with probably 500 grain arrows and a 2 blade fixed head. I've killed them with bullets, and I've killed two by ramming them with a Chevy.

If a deer was to suddenly appear in my kitchen right now, I would not be particularly concerned about whether or not I could kill it. They seem much less hardy than ducks or squirrels.

 

[BCHunter]

In my opinion you are right to an extent and wrong and I say that because a) with a shot gun blast you do not have one penetration you have 10’s or more. I personally saw a friend shot in the chest by a .38 it deflected and ended up stopping under his shoulder. Was there blood? Yes was there a ton of it like when a 30.06 passes through a deer? No.
My mother runs an emergency clinic and we keep paramedics on site at my work when we do new hire physical assessment. I’m not a professional on anything medical but I definitely consider my mother and one of the paramedics a professional in medical related traumas. I have casually asked both of them about removing knife blades or objects from stab/shooting victims and they both have a similar answer- do not do it. Even doctors in hospital do not remove those objects until they are in a surgery prepped scenario. So I’m civilly going to claim Ashby to be right in this regard.

a .38 is like a 40lb recurve shooting an expandable and the 30.06 is like shooting an expandable with an exploding tip from an 80lb bow

I definitely agree not to take an object out if you want to stop the bleeding, but a knife is not shaped the same as an arrow with a broadhead, so it will plug the hole.