I’d much rather get hit with a baseball going 100mph than a golf ball. Like the typical heavy/light circular argument, you’re not taking all factors into consideration. Surface area on impact matters...
-
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
Is Ashby's #1 goal flawed?
- Thread starter BCHunter
- Start date
I’d much rather get hit with a baseball going 100mph than a golf ball. Like the typical heavy/light circular argument, you’re not taking all factors into consideration. Surface area on impact matters...
Actually, the comparison is a ping pong ball going 100, and a golf ball doing 50.
Lighter faster, heavier slower. You’ve got a size thing going there that doesn’t compute to me as far as surface area. No way they’d be traveling at the same speed if thrown by an identical method.
agree with all you’ve said. Which is why I made the point.
Now this is a gross over simplification but...
All else equal if a mechanical is twice as wide as a fixed blade then you would only need half the penetration to get the same surface area of wound. So as long as your confident that you will achieve full deployment and 50% penetration and don't mind the lack of blood to trail then it would seem reasonable to use mechanicals.
However, this assumes the mechanical is making a cut twice as big from the moment of entry and I am uncertain about the distance a mechanical will have to travel before being fully deployed. So realistically you will need more than 50% to make up for the delayed cutting.
Lets do some math!
Back to the main point of the OP. The shaft in the wound channel is very significant. For illustrative purposes lets assume the deer is 24 inches wide at the point of impact.
Assume a fixed blade broadhead (no bleeders for simplicity) with a total cutting width of 1 1/16 inch or 1.0625 inches. With a clean pass through there will be 24 inches of penetration times the width of the 1.0625 inch broadhead times 2 accounting for each side of the wound. Therefore a pass through shot with a fixed blade will have 51 inches of wound channel and two holes in the animal.
Now for mechanicals. For simplicity sake lets forget about the delayed cutting of a mechanical. The OP mentions a 2/3 penetration shot which will be 16 inches. With a 2 inch cutting width that would be 64 inches of cut surface taking into account both sides of the wound (2x16x2=64). Now we have to account for the shaft still in the animal. There will be 15 inches of shaft in the animal plus a broadhead. Assume a typical arrow diameter of .3" at 15 inches long and you have a surface area of 14.41 inches. So now the total wound area is reduced from 64" by 14.41" so a mechanical with an arrow in the animal will have a total of 49.59 inches of wound channel. This doesn't take into account the surface area of the broadhead, the delayed cutting, and only has one hole.
While you could say the difference is marginal I will prefer to gain every edge I can and firmly believe two holes are better than one.
All else equal if a mechanical is twice as wide as a fixed blade then you would only need half the penetration to get the same surface area of wound. So as long as your confident that you will achieve full deployment and 50% penetration and don't mind the lack of blood to trail then it would seem reasonable to use mechanicals.
However, this assumes the mechanical is making a cut twice as big from the moment of entry and I am uncertain about the distance a mechanical will have to travel before being fully deployed. So realistically you will need more than 50% to make up for the delayed cutting.
Lets do some math!
Back to the main point of the OP. The shaft in the wound channel is very significant. For illustrative purposes lets assume the deer is 24 inches wide at the point of impact.
Assume a fixed blade broadhead (no bleeders for simplicity) with a total cutting width of 1 1/16 inch or 1.0625 inches. With a clean pass through there will be 24 inches of penetration times the width of the 1.0625 inch broadhead times 2 accounting for each side of the wound. Therefore a pass through shot with a fixed blade will have 51 inches of wound channel and two holes in the animal.
Now for mechanicals. For simplicity sake lets forget about the delayed cutting of a mechanical. The OP mentions a 2/3 penetration shot which will be 16 inches. With a 2 inch cutting width that would be 64 inches of cut surface taking into account both sides of the wound (2x16x2=64). Now we have to account for the shaft still in the animal. There will be 15 inches of shaft in the animal plus a broadhead. Assume a typical arrow diameter of .3" at 15 inches long and you have a surface area of 14.41 inches. So now the total wound area is reduced from 64" by 14.41" so a mechanical with an arrow in the animal will have a total of 49.59 inches of wound channel. This doesn't take into account the surface area of the broadhead, the delayed cutting, and only has one hole.
While you could say the difference is marginal I will prefer to gain every edge I can and firmly believe two holes are better than one.
I understand/get the point/visual u make....
The only thing about it is a heavier arrow setup isn't half the speed of a light 1.....85 baseball and 100 ping pong more like it. Arrow and spear are good comparison to get an understanding of the principle..they both ends in a point...400gr arrow dropped at u from 20 foot or an 8 pound spear...who getting better penetration
Back to original question on arrow clogging up wound channel...
This is purely my speculation. But I would imagine we view the arrow not being able to arrest blood flow in too long term of a perspective. The arrow just needs to be sitting there for an instant. The blood clotting process is freakin amazing.
Also, turn your hose pipe on with no nozzle on it. You probably have something like 40psi water pressure forcing that water out. Now quickly hold one finger over the end of the hose. Instantly, less water comes out. But then pressure builds, and more comes out, but less than before. I think both of these things are not good. First, you’ve decreased the amount of bloodletting, even if you haven’t completely stopped it. And secondly, you’ve allowed pressure to increase, which allows blood(and more importantly, oxygen) to continue to reach the brain of the deer.
a deer running full speed might cover an additional few hundred yards with a couple extra breaths and oxygen making it to the brain.
all this is speculation. But I suspect there is plenty to support it.
The arrow doesn’t have to neatly and perfectly fill a wound channel to arrest blood flow. It can slow it down tremendously by filling half the wound channel in two ways- physically being there and decreasing the surface area by which blood can travel, and by causing the clotting process to speed up.
This is purely my speculation. But I would imagine we view the arrow not being able to arrest blood flow in too long term of a perspective. The arrow just needs to be sitting there for an instant. The blood clotting process is freakin amazing.
Also, turn your hose pipe on with no nozzle on it. You probably have something like 40psi water pressure forcing that water out. Now quickly hold one finger over the end of the hose. Instantly, less water comes out. But then pressure builds, and more comes out, but less than before. I think both of these things are not good. First, you’ve decreased the amount of bloodletting, even if you haven’t completely stopped it. And secondly, you’ve allowed pressure to increase, which allows blood(and more importantly, oxygen) to continue to reach the brain of the deer.
a deer running full speed might cover an additional few hundred yards with a couple extra breaths and oxygen making it to the brain.
all this is speculation. But I suspect there is plenty to support it.
The arrow doesn’t have to neatly and perfectly fill a wound channel to arrest blood flow. It can slow it down tremendously by filling half the wound channel in two ways- physically being there and decreasing the surface area by which blood can travel, and by causing the clotting process to speed up.
I was throwing this together in CAD while you were posting this but, I think it illustrates the same point. Using the blade thickness of 0.035" (Rage hypodermic) and a 5/16" diameter shaft, the cross sectional area of a mechanical with three 1" blades is approximately 0.182 sq. in, including the shaft. Assuming the shaft stays in the wound channel you have an 'open' area of 0.105 sq. in.
The same 5/16" diameter shaft with a 1-1/8" COC two blade has a total cross sectional area of 0.116 sq. in. This doesn't include the fact that most COC broadheads have a larger tapered ferrule that would increase the cross sectional area even more.
@BCHunter This illustrates that a mechanical with three one inch blades and the shaft still in the deer has an 'open' wound channel of 0.105 sq. in. A 1-1/8" COC wound channel without the shaft is 0.116 sq. in. (likely more because of the ferrule). The numbers get a little more murky when you start looking at circumference of the shaft and not the area but, either way it shows that your assumption that a "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" isn't correct.
Another thing to think about....I also understand there are different broadhead designs but these are just 2 I have quick access to.
2"wide wound channel. Roughly 2"of cutting surface.
1⅛ wound channel and roughly 5½ cutting surface
Not sure what that equates to in science talk but to dumb welders that equates to more cutting potential for longer duration....smaller entrance and exit but more cutting potential inside the body...
2"wide wound channel. Roughly 2"of cutting surface.
1⅛ wound channel and roughly 5½ cutting surface
Not sure what that equates to in science talk but to dumb welders that equates to more cutting potential for longer duration....smaller entrance and exit but more cutting potential inside the body...
I guess the thing I'm pointing outis if u are cutting areas outside the wound channel it doesn't really matter if an arrow stuck in there or not sometimes
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,635
Let's say a deer is 12 inches wide for ease of math. An expandable with three 1" blades will create 24 Sq in of wound channel when it goes 8" into a deer. The 1" single bevel will create 12 sq in of wound channel when it passes through.
Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2018
- Messages
- 1,377
Actually the single bevel has two 1" blades and will create 24" of would channel plus an exit hole...
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,635
A 1" wide 2 blade will have two 1/2" wide blades. The 1" slope doesn't cut more wound channel, just makes it easier to do so.
Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
If u watch the video above u see cuts much larger than the broadhead width
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,635
If you have the guts all together and then pull them apart to show where the cuts are, it's hard to tell if those cuts are outside of the original 1" channel. I would be interested in seeing the same done with a giant expandable. By no means am I saying he's wrong, but would love to see the other side of the story.
Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
I was sold on single bevel before. But if the Navy Seals are using it to kill people because it's more effective. Then I'm sold on shooting deer with it.
One factor about penetration that isn't being pointed out in this discussion is that the broadhead may not contact the critical part of a vital until well beyond the second 50% of the width of the deer. You could have a fricken 10" wide cut into the first 50% of the short wound channel, but it ain't doing much good if it never reaches the boiler room, or a critical artery.
Yet another fascinating presentation by Dr. Ed Ashby. And he has dozens of videos and reports to prove that he has more knowledge and experience in his little finger than all of us on this discussion put together.
Who else would pump dye into intestine wounds in order to visualize the starburst cuts of a single bevel head?
I'm still trying to understand why some guys want to reject his findings.