Is Ashby's #1 goal flawed?

[BCHunter]

Man, yet another thread that questions the vast experience and real world findings of the most knowledgeable man on the planet on arrow lethality.

Dr Ed has no financial interest in pushing any type of arrow broadhead combination. His sole mission is to determine which combination leads to the highest recovery rate of arrow shot game animals.

His studies are instrumental in getting bowhunting legalized in several African countries. Many game departments have relied on his studies to tailor their weapons policies.

With all due respect to guys posting on this, and other threads, we are but a tiny, anecdotal case study on what arrow combination is most effective.

The premise of the OP is to disregard the odds of hitting bone...that's a bad premise. Animals move while our arrow is in flight. We need to assume that eventually we will need to penetrate heavy bone, on either entrance or exit. Crap will assuredly happen and you will eventually hit heavy bone and it may be a marginal location or severe angle. A clean tissue wound is not something that we can continually count on.

If I had to disagree with anything about his studies is the title "Lethality study". It should be more accurately called "RECOVERY study". Sure, we are trying to kill the critter, but what good is it if we don't recover it?

Ashby stated in one interview that his findings in Africa proved that AN EXIT WOUND was extremely important towards actually recovering the animal. We need an exit for our best odds of actually RECOVERING the animal.

His 12 point criteria in total is what he has found to result with the highest rate of exit wounds.
Ashby says that each of the 12 criteria are not actually a requirement to achieve increased penetration, but each of them will improve penetration. Its a matter of which (or any) a hunter chooses to employ.

Nobody says you have to do any of these things, but if you want the best of all odds, you'll employ as many as possible.

There is no such thing as "over kill". Do I need a moose arrow to kill whitetails? No. But I do want one for that eventual time when I need to penetrate heavy bone on both entrance AND exit.

Sorry guys, but I'm gonna rely on Ashby data and his findings more than I will depend on anecdotes or individual opinions.
The guy has more proof than all of us put together.

There are a slew of Ashby studies, and a bunch of videos, and that many more podcast interviews. It's difficult to absorb his entire message if you read/hear only a portion of what he has to say. It's a deep subject which takes a lot of airtime and print to convey. Too many guys base their opinions on arrow lethality after reading just a few of Ashby's publications and they don't understand the entire picture.

This thread was started more to argue about how an arrow doesn't really block blood from exiting a wound because of the fact that the broadhead makes a wound channel much larger than the arrow shaft. So when you go on the ashby foundation website and its the first thing you read about why you need penetration... It is faulty logic to me.



Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Allegheny Tom]

This thread was started more to argue about how an arrow doesn't really block blood from exiting a wound because of the fact that the broadhead makes a wound channel much larger than the arrow shaft. So when you go on the ashby foundation website and its the first thing you read about why you need penetration... It is faulty logic to me.



Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

The data needs to be looked at in it's totality.

 

[BCHunter]

A large portion of Ashby's point is that you aren't always going to "hit the right spot" (and with some animals like cape buffalo, even the right spot is indeed heavy bone). The goal is to build an arrow that gives us the best odds of lethality and recovery when the inevitable eventually happens.
There are countless slow motion videos that show deer and elk reacting to a shot before the arrow arrives. Sometimes the reaction is substantial enough to result in a complete miss. Other times the reaction is enough that our perfect shot (which is still traveling exactly where we intended it to) now strikes the deer in a different location, often it's shoulder or other heavy bone.

Am I the only person that has never hit a shoulder bone in the 20+ deer I've shot with a bow? Even if I do on my next deer, I'd rather have a better chance of recovering the other ones.

I emailed the ashby foundation about this subject, and they said nobody would take a bad shot on purpose, so you shouldn't need a giant mechanical. I think if you're riding the shoulder bone, it's a bad shot.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Allegheny Tom]

Am I the only person that has never hit a shoulder bone in the 20+ deer I've shot with a bow? Even if I do on my next deer, I'd rather have a better chance of recovering the other ones.

I emailed the ashby foundation about this subject, and they said nobody would take a bad shot on purpose, so you shouldn't need a giant mechanical. I think if you're riding the shoulder bone, it's a bad shot.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

20 deer is an extremely small sample.
And I assume that you've never taken the highly vaunted "quartering away" shot? With that angle, you are indeed aiming for the shoulder...the FAR shoulder, which tends to eliminate an exit wound when using light arrows and expandable heads.. Fewer exit wounds result in fewer recoveries. That's not my opinion, that's what the studies proved on many thousands of shots.

 

[Allegheny Tom]

This thread was started more to argue about how an arrow doesn't really block blood from exiting a wound because of the fact that the broadhead makes a wound channel much larger than the arrow shaft. So when you go on the ashby foundation website and its the first thing you read about why you need penetration... It is faulty logic to me.



Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

There are a ton a studies on the site. Can you give a link to the one you've quoted in your original post?
It is definity not "The first thing you read about" on the Ashby site.

 

[BCHunter]

There are a ton a studies on the site. Can you give a link to the one you've quoted in your original post?
It is definity not "The first thing you read about" on the Ashby site.

It's the first goal in the first link in the reports section

Ashby Bowhunting Reports — Ashby Bowhunting Foundation

Dr. Ed Ashby has provided us with decades of critical research focused on arrow and broadhead penetration. This work stands alone and provides global leadership in the areas of bowhunting lethality and ethical hunting practices.

www.ashbybowhunting.org

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[BCHunter]

20 deer is an extremely small sample.
And I assume that you've never taken the highly vaunted "quartering away" shot? With that angle, you are indeed aiming for the shoulder...the FAR shoulder, which tends to eliminate an exit wound when using light arrows and expandable heads.. Fewer exit wounds result in fewer recoveries. That's not my opinion, that's what the studies proved on many thousands of shots.

I definitely don't care if my arrow exits after hitting the opposite shoulder in a quartering away shot. That deer will be dead in seconds with any type of broadhead

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[Allegheny Tom]

I definitely don't care if my arrow exits after hitting the opposite shoulder in a quartering away shot. That deer will be dead in seconds with any type of broadhead

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Not necessarily. Quartering away shots can result in a variety of wounds to the lung(s). One lung hits are not uncommon on quartering away shots.
But back to the conclusions of the studies...arrow wounds with 2 holes (entrance and exit) results in a higher recover rate than wounds with only an entrance wound.
And to your original point, I get what you are saying but the tissue still remains in contact with all arrow surfaces that it's touching. Regardless of how substantial the wound channel is, the wound will produce more external bleeding if the arrow is no longer in that channel.

 

[Allegheny Tom]

I have difficulty understanding why guys reject the conclusions of these studies.
The on going studies are not just based on one mans opinions on anecdotes. The findings are backed by the medical community, papers and reports are peer reviewed, game department experts from around the world have accepted the results to the point that they legalized bowhunting in their countries.
Ashby is highly educated in relative studies. He's not just some dude that shot a bunch of critters.
He's documented, and quantified all his data on literally thousands of wounds.
Most importantly...
He has no vested interest in reaching a conclusion.
He is a true scientist in that he conducts experiments and follows the results to wherever it leads. If what he had found was light arrows, expandable heads, or single hole wounds were the most efficient devices, he would reveal it.
It seems like guys suspect he has some ulterior motives.

 

[BCHunter]

I have difficulty understanding why guys reject the conclusions of these studies.
The on going studies are not just based on one mans opinions on anecdotes. The findings are backed by the medical community, papers and reports are peer reviewed, game department experts from around the world have accepted the results to the point that they legalized bowhunting in their countries.
Ashby is highly educated in relative studies. He's not just some dude that shot a bunch of critters.
He's documented, and quantified all his data on literally thousands of wounds.
Most importantly...
He has no vested interest in reaching a conclusion.
He is a true scientist in that he conducts experiments and follows the results to wherever it leads. If what he had found was light arrows, expandable heads, or single hole wounds were the most efficient devices, he would reveal it.
It seems like guys suspect he has some ulterior motives.

Has he done a study on whitetail deer with modern 70lb compound bows and large mechanicals in real world hunting scenarios instead of over a watering hole?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[BCHunter]

Not necessarily. Quartering away shots can result in a variety of wounds to the lung(s). One lung hits are not uncommon on quartering away shots.
But back to the conclusions of the studies...arrow wounds with 2 holes (entrance and exit) results in a higher recover rate than wounds with only an entrance wound.
And to your original point, I get what you are saying but the tissue still remains in contact with all arrow surfaces that it's touching. Regardless of how substantial the wound channel is, the wound will produce more external bleeding if the arrow is no longer in that channel.

I would much rather have a mechanical on a one lung hit

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

 

[kyler1945]

I would much rather have a mechanical on a one lung hit

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

Before the shot, knowing only that the hit would result in the penetration of a single lung, you’d prefer a mechanical?

or after the shot, knowing the hit resulted in the penetration of a single lung, with the broadhead still intact, with razor sharp blades, and the broadhead still attached to the arrow and moving around causing additional cutting action as the animal runs away?

the problem with the above statement, is it doesn’t take into account all of the other variables that come along with single lung hits. Many single lung woundings occurs because of lack of penetration, and they often occur with broken blades, bent and dull blades, or completely detached broadheads.

A- I will say for an unknown shot that results in a single lung hit, I want a small razor sharp cut on contact head and a 500+ grain arrow.

B- for a single lung that results from me aiming too low to account for the angle from my tree, that doesn’t encounter any bone on entry besides ribs, and exits center of bottom of chest, I wouldn’t mind a wide cut mechanical, but I’ll still take a small coc fixed head.

B has happened to a handful of folks I know, including myself. Multiple deer were hit this way with rages. Those deer covered several hundred yards - miles. Mine was hit with a small cut on contact. It ran 75 yards. Granted, I got a second shot through the stomach. But Maybe I don’t get that second shot if I hit that deer with a wide cut mechanical and light arrow amd it takes off at warp speed.

 

[kyler1945]

Am I the only person that has never hit a shoulder bone in the 20+ deer I've shot with a bow? Even if I do on my next deer, I'd rather have a better chance of recovering the other ones.

I emailed the ashby foundation about this subject, and they said nobody would take a bad shot on purpose, so you shouldn't need a giant mechanical. I think if you're riding the shoulder bone, it's a bad shot.

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

I’ll disagree.




From about 3” behind the vertical line of the deers leg (intersection of d9 and d10 being the ideal aiming location), to the back of the stomach - if you hit in here, with a razor sharp broadhead, entering one side of the deer, and exiting the other, the deer is dead. No doubt. But unless you hit the dorsal aorta, that deer will likely live several minutes to 24 hours plus.

from the very back side of the thickest part of the deers shoulder bone(the actual bone, not the scapula), to about 3” behind the vertical line of the deers leg (intersection of d7 and d6 being ideal aim point) - you hit here, with a razor sharp broadhead, entering one side of the rib cage, and exiting the other, the deer is dead. No doubt. The odds of the deer dying within 200 yards with this shot is almost 100%. I say almost because I have been witness to hundreds dying, and dozens dying from this shot, and none have made it further than 200 yards. The odds of the deer dying within eyesight or earshot is incredibly high. The odds the deer dies within a minute or less are also incredibly high. why? Because the heart, and all the major plumbing exiting it, and very likely to be severed here.

Deer take a few minutes to drown/suffocate from a perfectly placed double lung hit 3-5” back from leg bone. Regardless of mechanical or fixed head. Deer take about 7 seconds to not be able to move their legs when blood pressure drops immediately and starves flow of oxygen to the brain because one of several major arteries have been severed with a forward hit.

I understand completely the logic of aiming center mass on a deer, knowing that if you connect it will die. It’s sound.

I don’t like tracking deer, and I don’t like leaving them overnight. I’d rather shoot an arrow that still has a reasonably good chance of entering major plumbing, should I miss too far forward. And I’m comfortable with “target size” to aim forward. I’m nearing half the deer I’ve killed being taken with 500+ grain and fixed head, and aiming “forward”. I’m enjoying the results significantly more than those of friends shooting light mechanical setups at the middle of deer. I like sleep.

You can call it a bad shot if you’d like. As long as you’re willing to admit you don’t have compelling statistical evidence to support the statement. I’m fairly confident in the back of the envelope math I’ve run. But I too, am simply doing what I want.

 

[Allegheny Tom]

I would much rather have a mechanical on a one lung hit

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

You have to keep things relative. The one lung hit with any style head will have a higher recovery rate when there is an exit wound. So the argument that you'd rather have a one lung with a mechanical head does not take into account the differences in recovery rates had that same broadhead had an exit wound versus having it lodging internally when it hits the far shoulder. You were the one that said you don't care if you have an exit. The facts, (proven by Ashby not from 20 deer) are that any given wound, regardless of the style of head, will produce a higher recovery rate when there is an exit hole.

 

[Allegheny Tom]

Has he done a study on whitetail deer with modern 70lb compound bows and large mechanicals in real world hunting scenarios instead of over a watering hole?

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

That's where the studies have the most value. He has done more real-world tests than anyone. It doesn't matter if it's a whitetail in a North American woodlot, or a similar bodied critter in Africa over a waterhole. Those things are irrelevant when discussing the factors of arrow lethality and game recovery. The principles and conclusions transcend continents or species.
And it's well documented that animals at waterholes are as nervous as it gets. The odds of critters reacting upon the shot are very high at water holes. Shooting game at water holes is not like shooting fish in a barrel.

Ashby is not the only member of his research team. Ranch Fairy is also one of several researchers at the foundation. These guys are shooting a variety of equipment on several continents. This is not just "an African thing" with traditional bows. The principles and physics of arrow lethality do not change from one species to another, or one location to another.

And since you bring up modern, 70lb bows, I assume you do so because you feel it leads to a higher rate of exit wounds. I thought exit wounds were not important?

 

[Weldabeast]

On a standard broadside shot form the ground I aim f6-7 if it's 20and under and g6-7 if it's further shot....earlier in my hunting career aiming in the d coloum the arrows either miss over the back or u get subpar shot location ...our tiny deer are real fast...I took a shot at 33 yds off the ground and the deer was able to turn to were if I would have hit the deer it would have been on the total opposite side of the animal I shot the arrow at

 

[kyler1945]

On a standard broadside shot form the ground I aim f6-7 if it's 20and under and g6-7 if it's further shot....earlier in my hunting career aiming in the d coloum the arrows either miss over the back or u get subpar shot location ...our tiny deer are real fast...I took a shot at 33 yds off the ground and the deer was able to turn to were if I would have hit the deer it would have been on the total opposite side of the animal I shot the arrow at

same. I was assuming tree angle by going to D level.

Big river bottom deer here are big. But the rest are the same tiny crackheads you’re shooting at.

 

[EricS]

I had a doe drop 6” at 15 yards this year. She was calm and feeding. I was amazed and super excited that I had it on camera only to find out that the camera was set on time lapse. Anyway I got one lung but also caught the spine but barely. She didn’t take a step. A heavy bone breaking setup hitting the same spot wouldn’t have got the spine at all. Heck with a slower setup it may not have even hit her.
I completely get the theory around shooting bone shattering broadheads. If I hunted from the ground calling deer I would definitely be shooting a heavy setup. I also shoot heavy arrows and fixed on my recurve.
For my compound for every inch farther forward you can get lethal hits I can add an inch to the rear, top, and bottom of a deers kill zone using a large mechanical. Add in that mechanical heads are less affected by bad form and for me it just makes more sense for me to shoot mechanical heads. I make that choice knowing that eventually I will lose an animal that I did everything right and the head failed. I still think I’ll find more because of them than I will lose with them to blame.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

I like the OPs point. There's no arguing with the data about arrow penetration, it's substantial. But what about KE spent in the target? Granted, the arrow has to get in there (to Allegheny Tom's point, well taken), but is it a safe assumption that retaining enough kinetic energy to pass through has more stopping power than an arrow that spends it all and stops some way through?

A light arrow loses more kinetic energy in flight than a heavy arrow high foc. There are chart studies done with arrow builds testing speeds at the bow and 30 yards later at the penetration point. Light arrows (< 425 grain) drop at speeds of 40 FPS or more in 30 yards, where as a 650 grain arrow will lose less than half that over the same 30 yards. So realistically what happens is the heavy broadhead and insert absorb more energy initially but are able to help maintain it upon entry of an animal. Sure you can smack a gold ball further than a baseball BUT if I were to throw a ball at you, which ball would you rather be hit with and why? That’s the easiest way I can relate heavy arrows to light arrows.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

On a standard broadside shot form the ground I aim f6-7 if it's 20and under and g6-7 if it's further shot....earlier in my hunting career aiming in the d coloum the arrows either miss over the back or u get subpar shot location ...our tiny deer are real fast...I took a shot at 33 yds off the ground and the deer was able to turn to were if I would have hit the deer it would have been on the total opposite side of the animal I shot the arrow at

Yea those 120 pounders move real quick lol