Is Ashby's #1 goal flawed?

[Kurt]

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

The energy we're talking about isn't small.

 

[MattMan81]

Tuned bow. Seems to be one thing every one can agree on. In my mind I thought that was his #1 goal? Perfect flying arrow. Just from my experience. Until I watched an RF video, I never shot a arrow threw a piece of paper. I have no idea how my old arrows would have bare shafted. I never heard the words paper tune until 2 years ago. Is it fair to say most hunters who are not for High FOC or CC shoot a well tuned bow and dont seem to complain about deer they lost. They are very proficient in there gear. There 360gr arrow has perfect flight, delivers all it's energy, and they shoot a lot, so are accurate. Average Joe hunter (like me) never gave a thought to anything other than I hit where I aim on the target. 3 arrows in a 6" circle at 20yards was good enough. Never mind if my arrows may have been a little off left or right. No wonder I ended up moving to a crossbow for a while. My bow set up was probably so far out of tune! I wonder how many other average hunters are dealing with the same thing? They just don't know it, or don't care. Ashby has been bringing that to light. It's got the hunting community talking about it, like this thread. So perfect arrow flight should be the #1 goal. I don't think it was listed as #1. But should be. You want your bullets to fly strait. So should your arrows.

 

[raisins]

I recall someone quoting Ashby stating "use as heavy an arrow that still gives you an acceptable trajectory". Well, my lower level acceptable velocity is 270 fps because I don't want to use an EZV or even worry about yardage from 0 to 25 yards, so I shoot an arrow around 400 grains out of a compound bow (415 grains, probably this year), and the only deer in decades I haven't blown through were 2 spine and 1 skull hit (all 3 fell within sight). So, according to Ashby, I'm done!

 

[slonstdy]

Tuned bow. Seems to be one thing every one can agree on. In my mind I thought that was his #1 goal? Perfect flying arrow. Just from my experience. Until I watched an RF video, I never shot a arrow threw a piece of paper. I have no idea how my old arrows would have bare shafted. I never heard the words paper tune until 2 years ago. Is it fair to say most hunters who are not for High FOC or CC shoot a well tuned bow and dont seem to complain about deer they lost. They are very proficient in there gear. There 360gr arrow has perfect flight, delivers all it's energy, and they shoot a lot, so are accurate. Average Joe hunter (like me) never gave a thought to anything other than I hit where I aim on the target. 3 arrows in a 6" circle at 20yards was good enough. Never mind if my arrows may have been a little off left or right. No wonder I ended up moving to a crossbow for a while. My bow set up was probably so far out of tune! I wonder how many other average hunters are dealing with the same thing? They just don't know it, or don't care. Ashby has been bringing that to light. It's got the hunting community talking about it, like this thread. So perfect arrow flight should be the #1 goal. I don't think it was listed as #1. But should be. You want your bullets to fly strait. So should your arrows.

You must be my long lost twin brother because up until a few years ago I thought the same thing, if my arrows are hitting where I aim then everything is great! Then one day I noticed the poor arrow flight and decided to tune my bow. Well what a difference that made! Complete pass throughs on a doe and a black bear with a 2 blade rage and the sternum of a buck preventing a third pass through with the same 2 blade rage that year. The difference shooting a tuned vs. untuned bow was not lost on me but not getting consistent pass through bothered me so I took a stroll down the heavy arrow highway.

So armed with a tuned bow lobbing heavy arrows topped with single bevels last year, two doe and a buck ended up being the losers in those encounters. All were complete pass throughs, two had great blood trails, two had very little reaction at impact, and one died within 10 yards of the impact (no blood trail). One was a poorly placed shot busting through the pelvic bone and breaking two ribs on exit. Seeing these results first hand for myself was an eye opener to say the least.

Was it really necessary for me to add 220 grains of arrow weight? After tuning my bow could I have just slapped a fixed blade bh on and gotten the same results? Did the single bevel really bail me out on that pelvic hit? These are questions that can never be truly answered because each scenario is unique as is each animal but what I have come to realize is that every tiny part has a role in determining the end result. I do believe a properly tuned bow should be first on everyone's list and then a quality arrow build with components you believe will work with your own setup.

Circling back to the Op's original thoughts, through my own personal findings I believe an exit hole is very much desirable regardless of what broadhead or arrow weight is used. Obviously, shooting at 70#'s affords one with more flexibility in choosing bh's and arrow weights to achieve the desired result as compared to someone shooting at 60#'s but a complete pass through should be the ultimate goal.

 

[raisins]

You must be my long lost twin brother because up until a few years ago I thought the same thing, if my arrows are hitting where I aim then everything is great! Then one day I noticed the poor arrow flight and decided to tune my bow. Well what a difference that made! Complete pass throughs on a doe and a black bear with a 2 blade rage and the sternum of a buck preventing a third pass through with the same 2 blade rage that year. The difference shooting a tuned vs. untuned bow was not lost on me but not getting consistent pass through bothered me so I took a stroll down the heavy arrow highway.

So armed with a tuned bow lobbing heavy arrows topped with single bevels last year, two doe and a buck ended up being the losers in those encounters. All were complete pass throughs, two had great blood trails, two had very little reaction at impact, and one died within 10 yards of the impact (no blood trail). One was a poorly placed shot busting through the pelvic bone and breaking two ribs on exit. Seeing these results first hand for myself was an eye opener to say the least.

Was it really necessary for me to add 220 grains of arrow weight? After tuning my bow could I have just slapped a fixed blade bh on and gotten the same results? Did the single bevel really bail me out on that pelvic hit? These are questions that can never be truly answered because each scenario is unique as is each animal but what I have come to realize is that every tiny part has a role in determining the end result. I do believe a properly tuned bow should be first on everyone's list and then a quality arrow build with components you believe will work with your own setup.

Circling back to the Op's original thoughts, through my own personal findings I believe an exit hole is very much desirable regardless of what broadhead or arrow weight is used. Obviously, shooting at 70#'s affords one with more flexibility in choosing bh's and arrow weights to achieve the desired result as compared to someone shooting at 60#'s but a complete pass through should be the ultimate goal.

Draw length, bow speed, and shooting form are huge also.

A 60 lbs bow at 30 inch draw, probably shoots harder than a 70 lbs bow at 27 inch draw. Also, it doesn't matter how well tuned your bow is if you torque it hard when shooting a deer and/or don't have the fletching to correct or a forgiving setup.

Until the Ranch Fairy thing took off, I had no idea that people were having trouble getting pass throughs on deer with modern compound bows pulling over 60 lbs/28 inch draw (unless shooting really weird/poorly designed/dull broadheads).

 

[Plebe]

"11. Tip Design: The Tanto tip is proven to be the most effective for a non-skip tip, and for initiating the splitting action when impacting bone."

Tanto actually refers to a knife with a blade length of 6-12 inches. Historically, Japanese tanto could have been single bevel or double bevel. The tip of Japanese cutting devices is called Kissaki and Japanese tanto had numerous configurations: http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/kissaki.html

Knife Maker Bob Lum drew on Japanese tanto for his designs, one of which Cold Steel knives largely copied and popularized on it's claim of superior penetration. Their "tanto blade" employed a Kamasu style tip, and henceforth we recognize this shape as a "tanto tip" or "American tanto."

Interestingly, there was a bit of a stir when Martial Artist Michael Janich published (September 2010 Tactical Knives) results of a study he conducted which demonstrate that penetration of kamasu style knives (which he dubbed sharpened pry-bars) was significantly shallower than other designs (dagger and akuchi 2-3x deeper penetration). Apparently, he did, however, find the tip resistant to breaking from lateral forces and resistant to blunting and breaking from impact with hard objects, which would be in line with Ashby's conclusions.

The penetration results were heavily criticized by Cold Steel knives, which attacked his partnership with Spyderco knives as a source of bias.

I don't know ultimately if evidence was presented to discredit Janich, but his conclusions were largely supported within the industry.

What's interesting to me is if we accept American tanto / Kamasu as an inferior tip design for depth of penetration, that still doesn't necessarily conflict with the rationale with which Ashby supports his 11th penetration factor (essentially penetration strength). What it recognizes is penetration through different mediums is maximized by different design choices. In keeping with Ashby's first rule, integrity is foremost in his list of priorities and Kamasu tip design supports this penetration factor.

Nonetheless, this leads me to take in what Dr. Ashby offers with an understanding that even for him it is a game of give and take. He has done a lot of good work to empower us. But I'm not blindly using a 650gr "tanto" tip single bevel for whitetail deer without considering the give and take of that vs other systems too.

--To be thorough, if I can with my limited knowledge, I believe edge shape is another factor. I believe that Hamaguri a.k.a Appleseed grind (a convex curve) was Lum's construction preference for blade tip whereas others used more economical grinds (including cold steel).--

 

[JSEXTON23]

Draw length, bow speed, and shooting form are huge also.

A 60 lbs bow at 30 inch draw, probably shoots harder than a 70 lbs bow at 27 inch draw. Also, it doesn't matter how well tuned your bow is if you torque it hard when shooting a deer and/or don't have the fletching to correct or a forgiving setup.

Until the Ranch Fairy thing took off, I had no idea that people were having trouble getting pass throughs on deer with modern compound bows pulling over 60 lbs/28 inch draw (unless shooting really weird/poorly designed/dull broadheads).

Let’s see, not everyone is blessed with a 30” draw length. Second, torquing a bow takes it out of tune, so what’s the point exactly? That you torque your bow into tune when shooting animals but shoot an out of tune bow at the range? And bow speed? What’s that? I killed a doe at 25 yards off the ground shooting a 42# longbow with a 560 grain arrow and I found my arrow 12 yards past impact in a sapling. I’m guessing I shoot 150 fps. You must live in a small bubble. It only takes watching a few YouTube videos to see a ton of non-pass through shots.

A forgiving setup is a well tuned bow and arrow, flying with a broadhead that has a high degree of integrity, with lots of mass.

I recall someone quoting Ashby stating "use as heavy an arrow that still gives you an acceptable trajectory". Well, my lower level acceptable velocity is 270 fps because I don't want to use an EZV or even worry about yardage from 0 to 25 yards, so I shoot an arrow around 400 grains out of a compound bow (415 grains, probably this year), and the only deer in decades I haven't blown through were 2 spine and 1 skull hit (all 3 fell within sight). So, according to Ashby, I'm done!

You intentionally shoot deer in the head?

 

[JSEXTON23]

What a horrible reply that takes my statements out of context and purposefully not in the manner in which they were intended.

I see nothing out of context. I merely quoted you and replied. Are you saying it was my intention to misquote you?

 

[kbetts]

The Ashby stuff is so well known and proven that you rarely, if ever see it discussed on traditional bow sites.

That in itself tells you all you need to know.

 

[BCHunter]

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

Hey, someone who can stay on topic!

Is the second exit wound about tracking or about it being more lethal? I would rather have a giant wound channel that is going to hit more tissue, thus creating lethal shots where it may not have been with a smaller head. I don't believe having two holes in and of itself makes most bad hits more lethal.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[JSEXTON23]

Hey, someone who can stay on topic!

Is the second exit wound about tracking or about it being more lethal? I would rather have a giant wound channel that is going to hit more tissue, thus creating lethal shots where it may not have been with a smaller head. I don't believe having two holes in and of itself makes most bad hits more lethal.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

If you don’t think it matters, in the face of the opinions of the Veterinarian Medical community, or Troy Fowler who is a trained professional dealing first hand with trauma victims, then it seems your mind is pretty well made up.

Shoot 2” mechanical broadheads.

 

[Plebe]

Hey, someone who can stay on topic!

Is the second exit wound about tracking or about it being more lethal? I would rather have a giant wound channel that is going to hit more tissue, thus creating lethal shots where it may not have been with a smaller head. I don't believe having two holes in and of itself makes most bad hits more lethal.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

What is the difference in tissue cut between a 2 inch broadhead that travels through only one lung and a 1 inch broadhead that travels through two lungs?

Penetration is a factor in amount of tissue cut.

It can be a factor in reaching vital tissue.

It is also a documented factor in recovery success:

Associated Data:

Deer Search, Inc.: - "chest hits in which an arrow only penetrates one lung presents very difficult tracking problems".
"High lung shots are difficult to track even with a dog, especially if no exit wound exist".

 

[Allegheny Tom]

What is the difference in tissue cut between a 2 inch broadhead that travels through only one lung and a 1 inch broadhead that travels through two lungs?

Penetration is a factor in amount of tissue cut.

It can be a factor in reaching vital tissue.

It is also a documented factor in recovery success:

Associated Data:

Deer Search, Inc.: - "chest hits in which an arrow only penetrates one lung presents very difficult tracking problems".
"High lung shots are difficult to track even with a dog, especially if no exit wound exist".

Deer Search is another excellent source for data on wounds. I forgot to mention them.
Thanks for reminding us.

 

[BCHunter]

If you don’t think it matters, in the face of the opinions of the Veterinarian Medical community, or Troy Fowler who is a trained professional dealing first hand with trauma victims, then it seems your mind is pretty well made up.

Shoot 2” mechanical broadheads.

I definitely think having two holes is a good thing. I just thing having a way larger wound channel is better than having 2 small holes

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[BCHunter]

A 425 gr arrow out of a 70lb compound with a 2" 3 blade will blast through ribs and lungs and have a full pass through 99% of the time. It's only when they hit shoulders will they stop. Let's stop acting like single lung hits from lack of penetration are common on a well placed broadside shot.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[GCTerpfan]

Hey, someone who can stay on topic!

Is the second exit wound about tracking or about it being more lethal? I would rather have a giant wound channel that is going to hit more tissue, thus creating lethal shots where it may not have been with a smaller head. I don't believe having two holes in and of itself makes most bad hits more lethal.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

The goal posts seem to be moving a lot in this thread. Your initial post said that Ashby's number one goal was flawed because "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." You said you believe that the amount of would channel that the arrow "obstructs" is negligible.

Your response to my first post about a 12" wide deer isn't correct because you are only looking at two dimensions of a three dimensional wound channel. I think it's safe to assume that a wound channel is the same size as the tissue that is displaced by the cross sectional area of the broadhead that moves through it. So, if you refer back to my post with the cross sectional area of a broadhead and use your example of a 12" deer a mechanical with three one inch blades, penetrating 8" will have 1.46 cu in. of wound channel (0.182 sq. in x 8") but if the arrow is still in the deer then 0.62 cu. in. (0.77 sq. in. x 8") will be "obstructed". (Its actually a lot more than that because that doesn't take into account the volume of the broadhead.) This leaves at most 0.78 cu. in. of "unobsructed" wound channel.

If you have a complete pass through with a 1-1/8" wide COC you will have 1.39 cu. in. (0.116 sq. in. x 12") of "unobstructed" wound channel. Someone can double check my math as I did it all pretty quick yesterday between work but, I believe it's correct.

I'm not arguing all of Ashby's points, you seem to have your mind made up. I'm just point out that the logic you are using to discredit his number one goal isn't correct.

 

[kyler1945]

Hey, someone who can stay on topic!

Is the second exit wound about tracking or about it being more lethal? I would rather have a giant wound channel that is going to hit more tissue, thus creating lethal shots where it may not have been with a smaller head. I don't believe having two holes in and of itself makes most bad hits more lethal.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Again, if you want to think about things on an individual basis, you can concoct the perfect scenario where one broadhead kills faster than the other.

you’ve not offered any supporting evidence as to why you think an arrow stuck in a wound channel won’t impede blood flow or increase blood pressure enough to materially impact death and recovery rates.

no one has countered with good evidence to the contrary, although quite a bit has been mentioned to exist.

I aim farther forward than most bow hunters. I shoot a heavier than average arrow with small razor sharp cut on contact fixed heads. I’ve Based that decision on what I’ve learned from the data available to us, and in context of what I’ve experienced in the woods, seen other people experience in the woods.

My line of thinking is this:

If I hit where I’m aiming, the arrow will zip through easily. I’ll sever major plumbing, and the deer will not run far for two reasons: the arrow passed so easily he wont take off like lightning, and the blood pressure will drop so quickly, he can’t.

if I hit slightly too far forward, or the angle puts the opposite leg bone in arrow path, the arrow will get through the vitals easily. It may not pass completely through. But I’ll get two holes. I’ll sever major plumbing and the deer will not run far. He may be more jacked up because he has one or two broken legs, amd try to run far, but he’ll not get very far because of the broken legs and lack of blood pressure.

if I hit behind or below where I want to hit, I could maybe experience less blood hitting the ground than a wide cut mechanical. But I’ll trade the deer walking stopping and looking around and wondering what just happened over running as if it’s on fire from the slap of a mechanical blade opening on its rib cage. The deers lungs will fill up with blood, and it won’t be able to inflate them properly with two holes in its chest. Now it’s confused, losing blood pressure, and can’t breathe. I’d prefer all those things happening over having a major dose of adrenaline pumped into its brain prior to take off.

you may prefer different results.

but in 6 pages you haven’t offered anything besides your opinion on why you don’t think an arrow stuck in a wound channel impedes blood flow, and that a wide cut mechanical going halfway through a deer is better than a small fixed going all the way.

I laid the ground work for you to present the case in our first few exchanges. I suspect there’s little to no data to support your opinion. But its only fair to give you the opportunity to present it.

there’s ample evidence to support the theory that an arrow stuck in a wound channel will in fact impede bloodletting, speed up clotting, and increase pressure in the vascular system. It is not the exact experiment we’d like to see, but there’s a huge amount that can relate indirectly.

i don’t know where to find them, but I’ve seen two studies that show a strong correlation between there being two holes in the deer, and recovery rates. This could or could not show a strong correlation between blood trail quality and two holes. But you’d be missing the rest of the important things that happen to occur along with an arrow creating two holes in a deers chest.

I’m happy to spend some time looking them up. But I’ll wait until you present a single set of data supporting your disagreement with arrows stuck in wound channels not being a big deal.

 

[JSEXTON23]

I definitely think having two holes is a good thing. I just thing having a way larger wound channel is better than having 2 small holes

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

As said above, length vs width. When the inevitable day comes that you hit bone, even a rib the wrong way, deflection and loss of penetration will happen. Then your big hole becomes a short hole. My tiny hole becomes a long hole.

Would a 2” mechanical possibly kill a gut shot deer a little faster than a 1-1/8” two blade single bevel? Perhaps, but I’d take my setup over that when it comes to heart shot deer. When that knuckle or humerus comes knocking for your mechanical, then what? Will you always avoid the forward portion of the vitals and bank on the superior cutting diameter to kill liver and gut shot deer? If so, you likely never have less than a pass through, even with a mechanical.

Btw, the doe I mentioned above was hit in the back of the lungs and liver. She ran 40 yards. No issues with recovery. That, to me, is a marginal hit. She was quartered to me and turned as the arrow entered. Would she have been more difficult to recover had my arrow stayed in her? I think without question, because she can feel the arrow getting hit my trees and her movement. That changes a wounded deer’s behavior. The pass through happened so quick, and you see this mentioned often with heavy setups, the deer barely reacts, walks off, and dies. You rarely see that with a deer shoot with half an arrow sticking out of it.

 

[Plebe]

A 425 gr arrow out of a 70lb compound with a 2" 3 blade will blast through ribs and lungs and have a full pass through 99% of the time. It's only when they hit shoulders will they stop. Let's stop acting like single lung hits from lack of penetration are common on a well placed broadside shot.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Sticking strictly to discussion of pass through vs no pass through...this example doesn't then apply.

So, maybe a 4" cut 4 blade broadhead vs that 2" 3 blade means massive single lung damage vs. pass through double lung damage.

Hitting heavy bone, maybe neither penetrate to vital organs.

And, maybe both hit the spine when a smaller coc didn't provide a lethal hit.

It's give and take when you focus on individual scenarios. I can't think of a reason not to want a pass through...with the most cutting diameter I can get.

 

[Plebe]

Far from an anatomical study, but if you shoot through a gallon of milk with a 1" broadhead and pierce a gallon with a 2" broadhead (leaving the arrow in the hole) in my mind it's likely the gallon that's been shot through drains faster. IDK, maybe that's not helpful at all.