• 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?

I was trying to keep it to the wound channel closing up because the arrow shaft still being inside the deer, but there are a lot of off shoots that kept popping up. I feel like we covered the main topic in the first 10 posts....

You haven't acknowledged my post that shows when you look at a wound channel in three dimensions and account for the volume of the arrow that the unobstructed wound channel of a three blade broadhead in the example you gave is in fact smaller than a 2 blade. I welcome any thoughts on why my logic or math is faulty.
 
You haven't acknowledged my post that shows when you look at a wound channel in three dimensions and account for the volume of the arrow that the unobstructed wound channel of a three blade broadhead in the example you gave is in fact smaller than a 2 blade. I welcome any thoughts on why my logic or math is faulty.

Sorry, it was really hard to follow for me... As I say to some of the engineer/computer types at work "Talk to me like I'm 7 years old"

I feel like you're saying a thicker blade will create a bigger channel? If that's the case there will be slightly more cutting at the very outside of the channel, maybe... but we are dealing with squishy bits that close back together and close gaps, so a thick blade most likely doesn't offer much of a benefit except when busting through bone.
 
Nobody points out the buck Jake lost with a heavy arrow and COC that didn't penetrate the shoulder, or the gut shot deer that they've lost since going heavy....

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
I don’t really want to make it about THP because we all do fall victim to our own excitement at times but them and ranch fairy seem to be the big names pushing heavy cut on contact heads. When you start talking about animals larger than deer I would take a different approach. I even get the fairy’s take on hogs. I’ve killed over a hundred hogs with a knife. You have to go through the arm pit and back up into the heart. Stabbing a deer is like stabbing a watermelon. They have an amazing will to flee danger and it makes them seem bulletproof. But from an anatomy standpoint deer aren’t that tough.
 
I don’t really want to make it about THP because we all do fall victim to our own excitement at times but them and ranch fairy seem to be the big names pushing heavy cut on contact heads. When you start talking about animals larger than deer I would take a different approach. I even get the fairy’s take on hogs. I’ve killed over a hundred hogs with a knife. You have to go through the arm pit and back up into the heart. Stabbing a deer is like stabbing a watermelon. They have an amazing will to flee danger and it makes them seem bulletproof. But from an anatomy standpoint deer aren’t that tough.
And yet, people kill deer every year that have bullets lodged in various parts of their bodies...
 
Sorry, it was really hard to follow for me... As I say to some of the engineer/computer types at work "Talk to me like I'm 7 years old"

I feel like you're saying a thicker blade will create a bigger channel? If that's the case there will be slightly more cutting at the very outside of the channel, maybe... but we are dealing with squishy bits that close back together and close gaps, so a thick blade most likely doesn't offer much of a benefit except when busting through bone.

In essence yes, the bigger object you push through a deer the bigger 'hole' you will have. I agree it's not perfect because things are 'squishy' but, the more important point is I think the volume of the shaft in relation to the size of the entire wound channel is a lot larger than you realize . The shaft being in the wound channel does in fact obstruct enough of it to make a 3 blade hole in your example smaller than a 2 blade hole with pass through. Like I said, it's not perfect and I'm not making any statements to how the arrow being in the wound channel affects blood loss. But, it does bring into question your initial statements about the size of the unobstructed wound channels in your example.
 
In essence yes, the bigger object you push through a deer the bigger 'hole' you will have. I agree it's not perfect because things are 'squishy' but, the more important point is I think the volume of the shaft in relation to the size of the entire wound channel is a lot larger than you realize . The shaft being in the wound channel does in fact obstruct enough of it to make a 3 blade hole in your example smaller than a 2 blade hole with pass through. Like I said, it's not perfect and I'm not making any statements to how the arrow being in the wound channel affects blood loss. But, it does bring into question your initial statements about the size of the unobstructed wound channels in your example.

The volume of the arrow shaft would matter if it could be squished into the channel of the wound and the channel stayed open in both types of broadhead. With the mechanical there is still open wound channel 7/8ths of an inch on 3 sides of the arrow. The best a 1" 2 blade can do is a single 1" slot hole. This obviously doesn't bring into play the magical L shaped channels and Starburst cuts from a single bevel, that's a whole different discussion.
 
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
Have you ever shot a 200 grain single bevel? The wounds are not small because the broadhead twists as it penetrates it forms almost an “S” shape through the wound channel and exit. I used to think the same way, then when I finally gave them a try the wound was not small at all, it was surprising to say the least.
 
........ As I said earlier, I would love to see Ashby's study on 70lb compounds with 400-500 grain arrows with large expandables into a whitetail's soft tissue. It seems pretty one sided and not very scientific if he hasn't gotten that data, but everyone draws conclusions on it.
I did email them this morning asking about that for you. I will share the reply when I have one.
 
If you hit a deer in front of its leg bones on a broadside shot with mechanical or fixed, it will likely live or be unrecoverable.

if you hit a deer square in the leg On a broadside shot with a high integrity heavy enough fixed head system that retains sharpness, the deer is dead within seconds. If you make that same shot with a mechanical on a light arrow you’re likely going to have a living deer, or a difficult to recover one.

if you hit a deer just behind the legs in a broadside shot with either setup, the deer will be dead within seconds.

if you hit a deer 6” behind the leg with a fixed or mechanical, many variables are introduced into the equation as to whether or not the deer will go down in seconds or minutes. Those have been explored over and over.

if you hit a deer 12-16” behind the front leg with either set up, many variables are introduced into the equation as to whether or not the deer will go down in seconds or minutes or hours or days. Those have been explored over amd over.

it’s pretty simple. If you want the best odds of killing a deer - aim center mass with whatever broadhead and arrow weight you like.

if you want the best odds of killing the deer within seconds, and not minutes hours or days, and thus increasing your odds of finding it, aim further forward than you normally would, and shoot an arrow system that will reach the plumbing every time while it’s still razor sharp.

I understand the arguments for both. I don’t like trailing deer, waiting overnight, telling strangers on the internet boring stories, etc. I like killing, immediately finding, and eating deer.
 
If you hit a deer in front of its leg bones on a broadside shot with mechanical or fixed, it will likely live or be unrecoverable.

if you hit a deer square in the leg On a broadside shot with a high integrity heavy enough fixed head system that retains sharpness, the deer is dead within seconds. If you make that same shot with a mechanical on a light arrow you’re likely going to have a living deer, or a difficult to recover one.

if you hit a deer just behind the legs in a broadside shot with either setup, the deer will be dead within seconds.

if you hit a deer 6” behind the leg with a fixed or mechanical, many variables are introduced into the equation as to whether or not the deer will go down in seconds or minutes. Those have been explored over and over.

if you hit a deer 12-16” behind the front leg with either set up, many variables are introduced into the equation as to whether or not the deer will go down in seconds or minutes or hours or days. Those have been explored over amd over.

it’s pretty simple. If you want the best odds of killing a deer - aim center mass with whatever broadhead and arrow weight you like.

if you want the best odds of killing the deer within seconds, and not minutes hours or days, and thus increasing your odds of finding it, aim further forward than you normally would, and shoot an arrow system that will reach the plumbing every time while it’s still razor sharp.

I understand the arguments for both. I don’t like trailing deer, waiting overnight, telling strangers on the internet boring stories, etc. I like killing, immediately finding, and eating deer.
I’m the same way. After I shoot I am waiting 45 minutes max and then I am recovering game. Down here there is no wait until the next day. If you haven’t recovered and field dressed your animal within 3 or 4 hours it’s either already beginning to spoil because it’s 90 during bow season or... hogs/bears/coyotes and ants have found it before you did and are eating it for you. Either way I get impatient.
 
So there are anecdotes proving everyone wrong... back to the original statement, a 2" three sided wound channel that goes most of the way through a deer doesn't magically close because of a 1/4" shaft in the center of it. I have nothing to other than videos and personal experiences to "prove" it.... guess we'll have to move on and argue about platforms and ring of steps :)

When the boat is sinking, when the dam is failing, you plug the hole.

This goes into the category of bad comparisons, but it demonstrates an essential aspect of fluid dynamics.

So, 2 unimpeded 1" holes with a connected interior channel (pass through), or a mostly blocked 2" "hole"?
 
I think we can all agree that of the Dr's 12 points of arrow lethality that 1 and 2 are important for any arrow weather light or heavy.....the thing about the big mechanicals weather 2 or 3 blade is they are more inclined to break...so with the thinner blade with steeper grind angles u also gotta worry more about the blade still being sharp be the time it gets to the goods inside the body....I'd take a 1" hole that Is a clean cut vs a 3" ragged cut...clean cuts bleed more and the blood can't coagulate as efficient
 
I think we can all agree that of the Dr's 12 points of arrow lethality that 1 and 2 are important for any arrow weather light or heavy.....the thing about the big mechanicals weather 2 or 3 blade is they are more inclined to break...so with the thinner blade with steeper grind angles u also gotta worry more about the blade still being sharp be the time it gets to the goods inside the body....I'd take a 1" hole that Is a clean cut vs a 3" ragged cut...clean cuts bleed more and the blood can't coagulate as efficient
To add to that. If you have a bevel your going to get rotation according to Ashby's research. That star pattern. If you cut your self in a strait line, it's easy to stop the blood flow with pressure. Cut your self with some twisting action and your probably gonna need stitches.
If a mechanical head is dull after it goes through a deer, and a COC is not. It means the COC was more efficient the whole way through. Do your own test next time. After you shoot a deer, jam a broadhead through just the fur and ribs. Then check how sharp your blades are. I don't know the answer. Never done it. But curious if they are still razor sharp.
 
I think we can all agree that of the Dr's 12 points of arrow lethality that 1 and 2 are important for any arrow weather light or heavy.....the thing about the big mechanicals weather 2 or 3 blade is they are more inclined to break...so with the thinner blade with steeper grind angles u also gotta worry more about the blade still being sharp be the time it gets to the goods inside the body....I'd take a 1" hole that Is a clean cut vs a 3" ragged cut...clean cuts bleed more and the blood can't coagulate as efficient

Ashby's 12 points are "arrow penetration factors." Of course penetration relates to lethality in many cases, but even Ashby would concede other factors come into play.

As for the rest, to me you're getting into a broadhead vs broadhead thing. For example:

Some of the Mechanicals fair pretty well in destructive testing, better than some coc.

I'm not sure bevel angles aren't so different between some mechanicals and some coc. For example, Sawtooth A2 Single Bevel Broadhead uses a 20deg bevel. I don't know the angle on any mechanical blade, but reportedly scalpels and razor blades use around 17deg of bevel.

Shallower, not steeper, angles cut more effectively. They can be more prone to edge chatter and deformation. A number of factors effect edge performance. That would be another topic.
 
And yet, people kill deer every year that have bullets lodged in various parts of their bodies...
The problem lies in the various parts. Those bullets put into the right places will kill deer. Same with broadheads. But which broadhead will be more accurate in the field. Which is going to be more forgiving to bad form. I want a forgiving setup. While field point accuracy with mechanical isn’t guaranteed, you’ll never see one advertised with fixed blade accuracy.
 
To add to that. If you have a bevel your going to get rotation according to Ashby's research. That star pattern. If you cut your self in a strait line, it's easy to stop the blood flow with pressure. Cut your self with some twisting action and your probably gonna need stitches.
If a mechanical head is dull after it goes through a deer, and a COC is not. It means the COC was more efficient the whole way through. Do your own test next time. After you shoot a deer, jam a broadhead through just the fur and ribs. Then check how sharp your blades are. I don't know the answer. Never done it. But curious if they are still razor sharp.

This involves numerous assumptions, imo. Could all be true, but:

I posted this link earlier to a cutting ability study. Here is that link: https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/08/06/sharpness-vs-cutting-ability/

It demonstrated that a shallower bevel angle offers more cutting ability against some substrates.

Also, it demonstrated that double bevel blades requires less force than single bevel against some substrates.

So, it depends

Also, how are you defining efficiency.
 
This involves numerous assumptions, imo. Could all be true, but:

I posted this link earlier to a cutting ability study. Here is that link: https://knifesteelnerds.com/2018/08/06/sharpness-vs-cutting-ability/

It demonstrated that a shallower bevel angle offers more cutting ability against some substrates.

Also, it demonstrated that double bevel blades requires less force than single bevel against some substrates.

So, it depends

Also, how are you defining efficiency.
As BChunter said. You gotta put it in 7 year old talk. Charts, microscope pictures and fancy number mean nothing to someone like me. My mind dosent work that way. I read a little bit and had no idea what they are saying. So stopped.
We are all making assumptions. Shoot what you have confidence in.
 
As BChunter said. You gotta put it in 7 year old talk. Charts, microscope pictures and fancy number mean nothing to someone like me. My mind dosent work that way. I read a little bit and had no idea what they are saying. So stopped.
We are all making assumptions. Shoot what you have confidence in.
That's a good reason to listen to some Ashby podcasts or watch some of the YouTube videos. When he speaks, he sounds more like a good old boy (an educated good old boy) than he does the educated egg head that resides inside of him.
Personally, I like the blend of a guy that speaks complex topics in terms that a simple mind like mine can understand.
I said earlier to seek out a variety of Ashby presentations and literature. A lot of it might seem redundant to other presentations or highly complicated, but it seems like every time I hear him speak, I hear some new gem or way of stating something that I've not heard or realized.
I will admit that some of the charts and formulas are way over my head but I don't focus on those. I do focus on what I know about his dedication to the world of bowhunting. He wants only the best for us, our sport, and the animals we pursue.
The guys does this as a non profit. I trust his findings.
Tomorrow, I will share the email reply the foundation sent me earlier. I'm going to bed now.
 
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

For me, the exit wound is about tracking. Hunting from a tree, I aim high, with the shot angling down to pass through both lungs. Since the entrance wound is high, if it is the only hole, the deer won't bleed much externally until the chest fills with blood to the level of the wound. The exit hole (if one exists) is much lower and will leave a blood trail much sooner than the high entrance hole.
 
Here is the response to the email I sent to the ashbybowhunting foundation.org
Another thing that I'd like to point out is that Ashby used to go to butcher shops that were processing deer during gun season and he offered them $5 for each (non fatal) broadhead they found in each of the gun fatal deer. He said he started running out of money. The point is that this is another example of the extent he goes to in order to study arrow lethality.


Tom:

Thank you for forwarding the post. I read the initial post only and not the entire thread. The comments regarding a pass-through by Dr. Ashby are not misleading at all, as BC states. BC is wanting people to disregard the entire medical community that impaled objects retard blood loss. This includes veterinarians and the studies/findings of the Royal College of Veterinary Science that a passthrough is more lethal than having the arrow remain in the animal. This goes against simple Boy Scout First Aid that if you are impaled with an object not to pull the object out as it could make the bleeding worse. This is not theory, it is fact and proven by many – ask any Doctor. An arrow and broadhead kill by hemorrhagic shock, and if you have a 2-3 inch wide cut that goes maybe 2-3 inches deep and maybe gets one lung vs a 1.25” wide cut that passes through an animal and presumably taking out both lungs…1 or more feet of penetration, common sense should prevail here and this is a non-topic. Bullets kill by three methods, hydrostatic shock as long as that projectile is above a certain speed, cavitation and hemorrhagic shock.



We have many videos of 70# compound shooters using what I would consider a light to mid-weight arrow system with an expandable failing to penetrate ribs on 120-140# Texas whitetails and subsequent game camera photos of those deer with scars on them – alive and well and walking around.



Here are a few videos for you to share with your crew online:



https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-to-treat-an-impaled-object-1298804

https://digg.com/2021/paramedic-dem...r-ever-remove-an-impaled-object-from-a-person

https://www.firstaidforfree.com/first-aid-measures-for-an-impaled-object/

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN14135_TC 4-02x1 C2 INCL FINAL WEB.pdf

https://journals.lww.com/em-news/fulltext/2001/09000/The_Diagnosis__Impalement_Injury.14.aspx


If BC wants to contact us either through the webpage or via email, he is more than welcome to do so and we’ll be glad to help him out, as we are here to help all bowhunters.



Thank you,

Rob



Rob Neilson

Co-Founder & President

Ashby Bowhunting Foundation


www.ashbybowhunting.org
 
Back
Top