Is Ashby's #1 goal flawed?

[BCHunter]

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

which head?

 

[BCHunter]

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!

given shot placement being king, I would assume a high FOC mechanical would do best in the wind and if you torque your bow while you're under the stress of the situation. A mechanical will drop a deer if you spine it, so all that is left is the shoulder joint? Just playing devil's advocate now

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

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.

Yes but when you look at your arrows or pull them out, you usually see tissue stuck to them and the broadheads correct? That tissue makes the actual wound smaller and allows other tissues to adhere to it, creating even more pressure and less room for blood to escape

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

given shot placement being king, I would assume a high FOC mechanical would do best in the wind and if you torque your bow while you're under the stress of the situation. A mechanical will drop a deer if you spine it, so all that is left is the shoulder joint? Just playing devil's advocate now

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.

 

[BCHunter]

Yes but when you look at your arrows or pull them out, you usually see tissue stuck to them and the broadheads correct? That tissue makes the actual wound smaller and allows other tissues to adhere to it, creating even more pressure and less room for blood to escape

The amount of tissue stuck to an arrow and the arrow itself is miniscule compared to the three 1" wound channels on the sides of the arrow.

 

[BCHunter]

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.

Do we want the same results? Is an arrow buried 18" into the ground a good thing? Or do we want to expend as much energy into the deer as possible to create as large of a wound channel as possible? The best option in my mind would be to barely get a pass through and have as big of a hole as possible.

 

[Fl Canopy Stalker]

The amount of tissue stuck to an arrow and the arrow itself is miniscule compared to the three 1" wound channels on the sides of the arrow.

Minuscule is still effective. I mean thread is tiny and so is a needle but they can hold a lot of skin together and stop bleeding right? Think of that tissue and the arrow as doing the same. It’s just providing pressure and surface for the wounded tissue to stick to and that will slow blood loss. Also as someone here already mentioned, the secondary exit would will most likely be lower than the entry point and blood will more easily flow downward. This was a fun debate though. You are very good at being a civil protagonist lol... thanks for the lunch time entertainment

 

[BCHunter]

Minuscule is still effective. I mean thread is tiny and so is a needle but they can hold a lot of skin together and stop bleeding right? Think of that tissue and the arrow as doing the same. It’s just providing pressure and surface for the wounded tissue to stick to and that will slow blood loss. Also as someone here already mentioned, the secondary exit would will most likely be lower than the entry point and blood will more easily flow downward. This was a fun debate though. You are very good at being a civil protagonist lol... thanks for the lunch time entertainment

It definitely slows down the bleeding, but it would still be like stabbing a deer with 3 of those 1" cut on contacts that you shoot in 3 pointed star pattern about 1/4" apart. Sure the holes aren't touching, but they sure are making it bleed.

This is definitely anecdotal, but some of my worst blood trails came from fixed blade broadhead through the lungs with a complete pass through. I barely had pin pricks of blood in the snow, but the lungs were filled when I finally found the deer. I've also had great blood trails with the exact same type of shot... So who knows.

Thanks I'm just hoping this makes people think about their setup. As with most thing in life, the "best option" is usually somewhere in the middle.

 

[kyler1945]

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

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...

The study is tiny, leaves open many variables, and the difference of 6% is likely inside of the statistical likelihood of error, so as to make it immaterial.

This doesn't mean that difference couldn't grow once the other variables are accounted for, and the study size increases. It just means you can't learn a whole lot from the data.

They are no less interesting though...

 

[mattsteg]

If you hit in the right place there's a really wide range of what gets the job done.

If you screw up the shot, there's a narrower range of what works - there are impact locations that a flapper will lead to kill and recovery and an Ashby-style arrow won't, and vice-versa.

Without a doubt you want to be the best archer than you can be, first and foremost. Without a doubt you will not be perfect.

Without a doubt you want good, clean stable arrow flight - regardless of arrow setup. And you want that arrow's energy to go into penetrating and cutting the animal, not crap like tumbling etc.

 

[Plebe]

If you hit in the right place there's a really wide range of what gets the job done.

If you screw up the shot, there's a narrower range of what works - there are impact locations that a flapper will lead to kill and recovery and an Ashby-style arrow won't, and vice-versa.

Without a doubt you want to be the best archer than you can be, first and foremost. Without a doubt you will not be perfect.

Without a doubt you want good, clean stable arrow flight - regardless of arrow setup. And you want that arrow's energy to go into penetrating and cutting the animal, not crap like tumbling etc.

Exactly, a field tip can penetrate well and flies "just like a field tip". You can get Ashby penetration and kill with one, but we don't hunt with them, it's even illegal to do so.

And on poorer placement, sometimes a 2" mechanical severs that femoral artery or spinal column that a 1& 1/4" coc missed. Or a heavy build blasts through the front leg and into the heart where a lighter build caused only superficial damage. So on and so forth.

 

[Wmihunter]

which head?

Iron will4 blade single bevel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Allegheny Tom]

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.

 

[zolson]

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?

 

[michigandrake]

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

Agreed ..... shoot a few deer with a heavy(ish) arrow and a razor sharp 2 blade and see for yourself what an efficient setup can do. It may come in handy when you get a little older and can't pull as much weight.

 

[Bdwilliams]

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?

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.

 

[EricS]

@BCHunter I lost a deer to a shoulder shot using a rage. It sucked but was completely my fault.
I still prefer them. When hit in the right spot I’ve seen more deer go down within sight than any other shot/weapon with exception of head/neck/high shoulder shots with a rifle.

 

[Jay_Disarray]

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.

A small but very important distinction.

I dont subscribe to the belief that deer can see an arrow flying through the air and do some matrix style bullet time jazz to dodge it. But they do react.
The ultimate goal is to completely surprise a deer with what seems to be a loud and close twanging noise. deer are always on edge, and ready to gtfo out of dodge at a seconds notice. I think almost every video i have seen, some in slow motion, when the deer ducks down, it is tensing its body, getting ready for that first leap.

 

[Allegheny Tom]

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?

I'm going to butcher this description and terminology so bear with me.
Ashby talks about KE and he says KE is not the proper energy in which to measure penetration. KE is the overall energy when an arrow is shot. A lot of the KE is lateral force and does not contribute to penetration.
Momentum is the force that contributes to penetration and momentum retains more energy in a heavy object than it does a light object.
The prolonged "pushing power" of a heavy arrow and a durable head traveling slower will tend to break bone better than a light arrow thats traveling faster. The sustained forward motion comes from momentum not from KE.

 

[Allegheny Tom]

@BCHunter I lost a deer to a shoulder shot using a rage. It sucked but was completely my fault.
I still prefer them. When hit in the right spot I’ve seen more deer go down within sight than any other shot/weapon with exception of head/neck/high shoulder shots with a rifle.

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.