Is Ashby's #1 goal flawed?

[kyler1945]

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.

I think part of the reason for the original thread, is to fight against exactly what you’re doing here. Praising the man creates the same bias in the opposite direction.

the data are the data. Just because you think he’s cool for having gathered it, has no bearing on how valuable it is. It’s just there.

 

[Allegheny Tom]

I think part of the reason for the original thread, is to fight against exactly what you’re doing here. Praising the man creates the same bias in the opposite direction.

the data are the data. Just because you think he’s cool for having gathered it, has no bearing on how valuable it is. It’s just there.

My admiration for him is based on what he does...unbiased, scientific, real world info on what arrow system is most effective to recovering game.
His data and how he gathers it may be cool, but the important thing is what it proves. And that, my friend is valuable.

 

[BCHunter]

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.

Has he pumped the dye through with a 2" expandable? Would love to see that video if you have a link

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[Weldabeast]

Has he pumped the dye through with a 2" expandable? Would love to see that video if you have a link

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

I don't know for sure but I do believe the Ashby foundation will have this info available soon...

 

[BCHunter]

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.

Would love to see his work with modern compounds, 70lb draw, medium weight arrows(400-500gr) and large mechanical broad heads on whitetail deer. If you have links that would be awesome, not being sarcastic.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[MattMan81]

I think part of the reason for the original thread, is to fight against exactly what you’re doing here. Praising the man creates the same bias in the opposite direction.

the data are the data. Just because you think he’s cool for having gathered it, has no bearing on how valuable it is. It’s just there.

From what I have read, and the pod cast I have heard, is he isn't after praise. Maybe I'm wrong. I think he is a hunter who had a question he wanted to answer. He was fortunate enough to answer some of those questions. I think for him it's all about the passion of hunting. Making the best kill arrow
possible. All he has said is what the best tool is for doing it per his re search. There is always multiple tools in the box to use. A 300 dollar drill is better than a 70 dollar drill. Both get the job done. One maybe faster, or have different options. But both are a drill.
I think everyone will agree that every bowhunter should:
1. Make sure there arrows are flying strait.
2. Make sure there broadheads are sharp.
3. Take good shots on there animals.
400gr or 800gr. Single or mech. Be efficient in what your shooting to try and put the animal down quickly as possible.

 

[Spence71]

This is as hot if a topic as which “pack is best”. Of which, you can find many a heated debate over that very subject here. And it comes down to personal opinion and experience. That being said...

I think that if you merely take any 1 of the 12 principles alone... meh. You’re right. However. Looking at all 12 and their viability as a 12 points of the larger hypothesis and it’s very well documented and tested results.

Take an hour or so and listen to this.

‎The Outdoor Drive Podcast: Dr. Ashby - 40 Years of Arrow Research on Apple Podcasts

‎Show The Outdoor Drive Podcast, Ep Dr. Ashby - 40 Years of Arrow Research - Jan 20, 2021

podcasts.apple.com

I didn’t read all the posts above. But the best example of the Ashby theory was this. Put 2 cement trucks up in a hill, one full. One empty. See what happens when you push those into a building at the bottom of the hill. Which one does the most damage.

Shoot what ya want. Plenty of people throughout time have killed animals with anything imaginable. When I got into this I knew I didn’t want flappers, just because of a potential fail point from the general design. I went fixed.

Same reason I went back to prussics instead of ropemans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

agree with all you’ve said. Which is why I made the point.

The gist I was making is the heavier object hurts worse. And yes the ping pong ball verse a golf ball analogy would work way better

 

[Weldabeast]

Lol I like devil’s advocate but you lose too much energy in a “larger mechanical blade”. The arrow slows velocity quickly while the blade mechanism springs out, it’s almost like producing a secondary impact by which energy is absorbed. So no I do not believe a high foc mechanical will render the same results.

Sssoooo...an efoc arrow is retaining/storing a bunch more energy fr the bow and higher momentum....that's why ur arrows are rocking the target. Right?...they hit "harder" more force/momentum behind them. Now when ur arrow hits a target wonky/not square there are higher stresses placed on the broadhead. If we are having mechanical broadhead failure on the light wing dingers it's only gonna get worse adding more weight into the equation....so now u gotta make the broadhead beefier to handle the more extreme pressures...how would making blades thicker and longer affect the amount of time/depth of broadhead it would take to deploy the blades? I have no idea the answer but interesting to think about....and I guess more importantly...how much more energy dump with the thicker longer blades

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

Sssoooo...an efoc arrow is retaining/storing a bunch more energy fr the bow and higher momentum....that's why ur arrows are rocking the target. Right?...they hit "harder" more force/momentum behind them. Now when ur arrow hits a target wonky/not square there are higher stresses placed on the broadhead. If we are having mechanical broadhead failure on the light wing dingers it's only gonna get worse adding more weight into the equation....so now u gotta make the broadhead beefier to handle the more extreme pressures...how would making blades thicker and longer affect the amount of time/depth of broadhead it would take to deploy the blades? I have no idea the answer but interesting to think about....and I guess more importantly...how much more energy dump with the thicker longer blades

That would be an interesting study in and of itself. I have been using 200 grain single bevel heads for a couple years now. With 100 grain inserts on 32” arrows in either 250 spine or 300 spine. My arrows are typically around 10.6 gpi so 339.2 grains then add 300 grains in the front, 14 grains for the knock and feathers. That’s my set up. This weekend just for fun I shot a lighter 300 spine (9.3 gpi) but I used a 315 grain field point just to see. I bare shaft it first and it shot just slightly underspine (tail slightly left as I am a right hand shooting archer). But the most amazing part was when I shot the same arrow with fletchings, into my new(ish) block target it literally went all the way through the target and into the ground behind it. The second shot hit a tad lower than center and stopped all the way in (the only thing I could see in the front was the knock so I had to pull that arrow through to get it out. The penetration was very good with those 200 grains but it is down right astonishing with the 315 grain broad head.

 

[Allegheny Tom]

Would love to see his work with modern compounds, 70lb draw, medium weight arrows(400-500gr) and large mechanical broad heads on whitetail deer. If you have links that would be awesome, not being sarcastic.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

I would like to see that test as well. I'm not aware of any recent reports the foundation has done with mechanical heads but I suspect I know how they feel about them. I will send them an email and ask them to convey their position on what you are wondering about. I'm sure their explanation will be much more coherent than mine. The foundation has been pretty good at answering my emails in the past. I will share what they say when they reply.
I believe I have heard Ashby say that the bow is just the arrow delivery device. The important details are more about the arrow and not so much about the device that propels the arrow.
I doubt they are going to differentiate a 70 pound compound from a 90 pound longbow from a 40 pound recurve. The principles of arrow lethality do not change based on the bow. Its about the arrow.

 

[Kurt]

Is the kinetic energy "dumped" into an animal from an arrow substantial? We're not talking rifle bullets. We're talking broadheads that are cutting, not bullets mushrooming and damaging tissue from that energy.

A mechanical head takes enough force to open that if the arrow tip isn't properly built it will come apart. I consider that a fair amount of force.

 

[BTaylor]

I have long thought the disconnect with Ashby's research and north american hunting is keeping in mind the animal comparisons. For the most part this thread is only discussing deer and they are just not that tough period. While I agree with Ashby's findings I do not follow them for deer hunting exactly. I prefer to shoot the largest cutting head I can expect to achieve pass throughs consistently paired with an arrow weight that as closely as possible maximizes bow and arrow efficiency. Maybe the most important aspect left out of these type discussion is bow and arrow tune. You can follow Ashby's recommendations to a T but if the tune is not spot on the terminal results will suffer. I have seen plenty of short draw length, relatively light weight setups with mechnicals zip arrows through deer and elk on a consistent basis but they were all meticulously tuned. I wouldnt advocate most folks using those setups, esp. new bowhunters. I come at it from the perspective of considering the bow, the total arrow weight to maximize bow/arrow performace and then the animal being hunted influences the choice in head(mech. or fixed). Then get that setup tuned as well as you can.

 

[1simplemann]

This is an interesting discussion. I've been doing this ashby stuff for 10 yrs. It works. I used to be heavy into waterfowl hunting as well. I realize this is apples and oranges but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. I've been in blinds where guys try to have wider pattern and more pellets. IE 7 1/2's, 8's. Ther reasoned that they were going to do more damage. Their hit ratio went up but the pellets were just bouncing off . Their crippling ratio went way up. Not very scientific but you just had to be there to see it. The guys shooting 4's and 6's were kill'n em. Also If cost were NOT a factor, I don't know of a single waterfowl hunter that has shot lead, steel AND bismuth that has gone back to steel or preferred steel. The lighter faster steel loads just don't kill as effectively as the heavier loads. The heavier loads break their bones and they don't go far. I've seen many a duck fly a long ways and then go down. Retrieval rates go down. When you apply this to WT's, now I aim tight to the shoulder in the Vital V and they go down with in sight. Bones are not a concern.

 

[Allegheny Tom]

I have long thought the disconnect with Ashby's research and north american hunting is keeping in mind the animal comparisons. For the most part this thread is only discussing deer and they are just not that tough period. While I agree with Ashby's findings I do not follow them for deer hunting exactly. I prefer to shoot the largest cutting head I can expect to achieve pass throughs consistently paired with an arrow weight that as closely as possible maximizes bow and arrow efficiency. Maybe the most important aspect left out of these type discussion is bow and arrow tune. You can follow Ashby's recommendations to a T but if the tune is not spot on the terminal results will suffer. I have seen plenty of short draw length, relatively light weight setups with mechnicals zip arrows through deer and elk on a consistent basis but they were all meticulously tuned. I wouldnt advocate most folks using those setups, esp. new bowhunters. I come at it from the perspective of considering the bow, the total arrow weight to maximize bow/arrow performace and then the animal being hunted influences the choice in head(mech. or fixed). Then get that setup tuned as well as you can.

Ashby's tests have included a large variety of critters and some are a close comparison to deer. African animals have been more convenient subjects for the extensive number of kills that it takes to conduct thorough testing.

As far as arrow tuning goes, Ashby goes into great detail about the importance of a well tuned arrow and how to achieve it.

I'm not calling you out, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of the people on both sides of this discussion have never (or very minimally) followed Ashby. They may make judgments after comments are made by people like me that may not convey everything accurately or concisely. The entire concept of a lethal arrow, clotting cascade, game recovery, etc is quite dynamic. Taking bits and pieces from the studies, and often putting them out of context, is what leads to misinterpretation of the entire picture.
There is an absolute ton of reports, papers, podcasts, and videos on the studies. It takes a lot of time and dedication to find and absorb all of it. No one source can convey the entire amount of data.

 

[Bdwilliams]

A mechanical head takes enough force to open that if the arrow tip isn't properly built it will come apart. I consider that a fair amount of force.

Not sure I agree. I'm just a biologist with a poor understanding of physics. I tossed some numbers into an energy calculator and a 600 grain arrow at 300 fps is less than 200 joules. A 150 bullet out of a .30-30 is over 2000 joules. I'm know this is oversimplified, but arrows and bullets kill differently. You don't see the damage and "jelly" from archery deer that you do with bullets. One's cutting/slicing, the other's poking a hole and dumping a lot of energy. Am I wrong?

 

[Jeremy Holden]

I didn't read all 5 pages of this discussion so maybe I'm repeating some previous points made. If I'm understanding you and you're question, you're taking one of his 12 factors and saying it's not that relevant. I believe all the factors go hand in hand and play off of each other. For example a 2 blade broad head with a 3:1 ration length to width is more efficient than a shorter, wider, two blade. The more narrow blade has more cutting surface and robs less energy for penetration vs. the wider blade. Even the degree of the bevel has a mechanical advantage. I don't shoot expandable broad heads but my son does. He hit a buck at 20 yards, broad side right behind the shoulder. Lots of blood initially but never recovered that deer. Never found the arrow either. Two days later he shoots a deer at 30 yards with a 2 blade, fixed blade, broad head. That deer walked away and we recovered it in 40 yards, complete pass through. While skinning that deer we found a wound where my son had shot that deer two days prior.

I guess I'm saying take his theories and place them all into practice. Weight, foc, durability, all of it. You shouldn't take only what you want from it. It all goes hand in hand.

 

[Kurt]

Is the kinetic energy "dumped" into an animal from an arrow substantial? We're not talking rifle bullets. We're talking broadheads that are cutting, not bullets mushrooming and damaging tissue from that energy.

A mechanical head takes enough force to open that if the arrow tip isn't properly built it will come apart. I consider that a fair amount of force.

 

[Weldabeast]

Not sure I agree. I'm just a biologist with a poor understanding of physics. I tossed some numbers into an energy calculator and a 600 grain arrow at 300 fps is less than 200 joules. A 150 bullet out of a .30-30 is over 2000 joules. I'm know this is oversimplified, but arrows and bullets kill differently. You don't see the damage and "jelly" from archery deer that you do with bullets. One's cutting/slicing, the other's poking a hole and dumping a lot of energy. Am I wrong?

a head that is slicing from contact losses little energy vs a mech that when whatever mechanical action is going to happen (fold over blade like shwacker or slide back like rage) that action of the blades "deploying" requires energy and that energy required to open the head however small is taking away from the penetration process.

Also...when u start shooting heavys u do start to see jello but obviously not to the extent of a bullet

 

[Kurt]

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

I get what your saying. leave the puncturing impediment(knife,broken stick) in the wound and it puts pressure on the tissues/blood vessels it damaged on the way in thus helping to clog the entrance wound and aid clotting within. The question is does the impediment that has a large leading edge (broadhead) that does damage to it's max penetrating depth and pulls with it a much narrower back end (arrow shaft) have the same result from leaving it in. I would say a broadhead tipped arrow is less effective at clogging the entrance and is less effective at adding pressure to aid clotting within, except for the tissue in direct contact with the broadhead as it comes to rest at max penetration. Remember also a deer is hauling ass and a person with an impediment lodged in his chest is trying to hold still so they don't bleed out. One impediment is not going to be as efficient. I'm all for the low exit wound as an elevated hunter. Then the argument of is it better to have the broadhead in as the animal runs away thus causing more damage as the broadhead moves about inside the animal, or is it better to have an exit wound. Again, I'm wanting the exit. I'd say this particular point doesn't hold the importance for me as much of the other factors do. I want super sharp CoC with enough weight and flying straight to give me as close to 100% chance of an exit wound as I can get. Honestly I don't care about pass throughs as much as I do about an exit wound. If I have to sink arrows 10 inches into the dirt on a hundred deer to make sure I have enough penetration to get an exit wound on my 1 worst shot, that's the arrow I'm going to build