• 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

Who has snorted the Fairy Dust?

I know I was bowhunting well before the first Ashby study was released and am pretty sure you were as well. Were you shooting that style setup from the very beginning? I certainly was not. I wasnt shooting a light setup at all but it was certainly not Ashby styled. I tried to for a bit to go to a lighter setup to gain speed for flatter trajectory. The results were inconsistent so I moved back in the direction of what had always worked. I get your point about not experimenting on game but if any aspect of a setup changes, the next shot at an animal is just that and the only way we learn how our individual setup is going to work is by shooting game.
Yeah I've been bowhunting for 50 seasons now. Back in those early days, pretty much all arrows were on the heavier side and we shot CoC heads.
Our choices for gear experimentation was fairly limited.
Then in the 1980s, bowhunting started to be driven by marketing which brought competition which brought innovation (which was sometimes good and sometimes not so good for bowhunting). New design compounds and speed became all the rage. At that time gear choices were growing rapidly and that lead to extensive experimentation. It also was the start of the box stores selling gear with little, or no knowledge of what the heck they were selling or doing. Come in, slap your credit card down, and you too were now a bowhunter. There were a lot of hunters out there with no business slinging arrows at critters.
Those were also the days when some guy named Dr Ed Ashby was presenting his experiments and data to various African countries which wanted to explore the feasibility of legalizing bowhunting. 30+ years later, Ashby has compiled extensive data on which arrow set-up were more lethal.
In a lot of ways, we've gone beyond full circle. We are not only going back to the days of heavier arrows and CoC heads, we are actually improving upon those older, tried and true concepts.
Yes, the experimentation continues, but it's being led by highly qualified people that conduct testing for the love and preservation of bowhunting. It's not marketing.

I'm not implying that hunters shouldn't experiment and develop an extensive knowledge of their gear. I'm just not so sure that experimenting on live critters is something that a lot of hunters are qualified to do.
Ashby/RF are an effective shortcut for a lot of us. These guys are valuable assets to us so why not utilize the tremendous input that they make available to us?
 
Yeah I've been bowhunting for 50 seasons now. Back in those early days, pretty much all arrows were on the heavier side and we shot CoC heads.
Our choices for gear experimentation was fairly limited.
Then in the 1980s, bowhunting started to be driven by marketing which brought competition which brought innovation (which was sometimes good and sometimes not so good for bowhunting). New design compounds and speed became all the rage. At that time gear choices were growing rapidly and that lead to extensive experimentation. It also was the start of the box stores selling gear with little, or no knowledge of what the heck they were selling or doing. Come in, slap your credit card down, and you too were now a bowhunter. There were a lot of hunters out there with no business slinging arrows at critters.
Those were also the days when some guy named Dr Ed Ashby was presenting his experiments and data to various African countries which wanted to explore the feasibility of legalizing bowhunting. 30+ years later, Ashby has compiled extensive data on which arrow set-up were more lethal.
In a lot of ways, we've gone beyond full circle. We are not only going back to the days of heavier arrows and CoC heads, we are actually improving upon those older, tried and true concepts.
Yes, the experimentation continues, but it's being led by highly qualified people that conduct testing for the love and preservation of bowhunting. It's not marketing.

I'm not implying that hunters shouldn't experiment and develop an extensive knowledge of their gear. I'm just not so sure that experimenting on live critters is something that a lot of hunters are qualified to do.
Ashby/RF are an effective shortcut for a lot of us. These guys are valuable assets to us so why not utilize the tremendous input that they make available to us?
Where your thoughts and mine deviate is I think it is very important for hunters to understand the Ashby data in it's proper context so they can build out their setup appropriately for what they are hunting and then use that knowledge to make small adjustments to fine tune if necessary. I certainly dont mean to come across as the data not being relevant because I definitely believe it is. However there is a distinct difference in large African game and what we hunt here. I think it could be argued that large hogs are about the toughest critters we have from a penetration standpoint. Where the Ashby information is geared towards penetration, from my perspective and due to the nature of the areas I hunt the most, I am concerned not only with penetration but also with maximizing blood loss for recovery purposes. 2 blade heads just simply do not produce as consistently good blood trails as do 3 blades. Some will argue that the blood trial is not important if you see them go down and I do not disagree but for a lot of areas I hunt that would need to be within 25 yards and sometimes less. I have not kept up with it but would venture that over 95% of the animals I have shot went 125 yards or less maybe a half dozen or so made it past 100. I dont think I have seen 20% go down. If I primarily hunted areas with good visibility and easy tracking the scale might tip to where maximum blood loss was less critical.
 
Where your thoughts and mine deviate is I think it is very important for hunters to understand the Ashby data in it's proper context so they can build out their setup appropriately for what they are hunting and then use that knowledge to make small adjustments to fine tune if necessary. I certainly dont mean to come across as the data not being relevant because I definitely believe it is. However there is a distinct difference in large African game and what we hunt here. I think it could be argued that large hogs are about the toughest critters we have from a penetration standpoint. Where the Ashby information is geared towards penetration, from my perspective and due to the nature of the areas I hunt the most, I am concerned not only with penetration but also with maximizing blood loss for recovery purposes. 2 blade heads just simply do not produce as consistently good blood trails as do 3 blades. Some will argue that the blood trial is not important if you see them go down and I do not disagree but for a lot of areas I hunt that would need to be within 25 yards and sometimes less. I have not kept up with it but would venture that over 95% of the animals I have shot went 125 yards or less maybe a half dozen or so made it past 100. I dont think I have seen 20% go down. If I primarily hunted areas with good visibility and easy tracking the scale might tip to where maximum blood loss was less critical.

What sample size are you talking about for observing the delta between blood trail quality of 2 v 3 blade?

2 deer?

20?

200?
 
What sample size are you talking about for observing the delta between blood trail quality of 2 v 3 blade?

2 deer?

20?

200?
If specifically just my personal results, somewhere around 2 dozen 2 blade deer (heads were bear, simmons, ace, magnus and one more I am not recalling) and 120+ 3 blade. If you want to include kills of the guys I personally know that have shot both those numbers are going to go up a lot for both 2 & 3 blades. I have had some phenomenal blood trails with 2 blades and have had some really poor blood trails with 3 blades but on avg 3 blades have consistently yielded better blood trails.
 
If specifically just my personal results, somewhere around 2 dozen 2 blade deer (heads were bear, simmons, ace, magnus and one more I am not recalling) and 120+ 3 blade. If you want to include kills of the guys I personally know that have shot both those numbers are going to go up a lot for both 2 & 3 blades. I have had some phenomenal blood trails with 2 blades and have had some really poor blood trails with 3 blades but on avg 3 blades have consistently yielded better blood trails.

Gotcha.

I have my opinion about blood trails, and share similar anecdotal sample sizes. I saw no discernible difference in broadhead choice relation to blood trails. But I see a significant different when I hit a deer frontal/front half of lungs/low exit up front/femoral/dorsal aorta when compared to just behind the scapula rearward.

The takeaway is that if you put a legal or bigger razor sharp broadhead in the piping in the front of a deer, the size of it doesn’t matter. If you put a legal or bigger razor sharp broadhead behind the piping, and don’t hit the femoral or dorsal, the size of it doesn’t matter. In specific regards to blood trails.

Wound size seems to correlate much less to blood trail quality than the blood pressure/volume of the stuff you hit.
 
The biggest difference between good or bad blood trails is a high hit or a low hit. All of the blood that would stay in the body cavity on a high hit spills out onto the ground on a low hit.
 
There are a huge number of factors that I think influence blood trails. Things such as wound height on the body, wound through a single layer of hide and ribs opposed to a hit with moving layers of muscle underneath before reaching the body cavity. The type and location of arteries/veins cut, organs punctured, and organs moving after the hit. The research would also suggest blade sharpness and edge finish play a big role in coagulation and hemorrhaging Blood clotting, The Bodies Weapon Against Hemorrhage - Bowhunting Success. If I had to pick any one thing that I think makes the strongest impact on a good blood trail it would be putting 2 holes in the animal and having the exit be low on the animal's body.
 
Gotcha.

I have my opinion about blood trails, and share similar anecdotal sample sizes. I saw no discernible difference in broadhead choice relation to blood trails. But I see a significant different when I hit a deer frontal/front half of lungs/low exit up front/femoral/dorsal aorta when compared to just behind the scapula rearward.

The takeaway is that if you put a legal or bigger razor sharp broadhead in the piping in the front of a deer, the size of it doesn’t matter. If you put a legal or bigger razor sharp broadhead behind the piping, and don’t hit the femoral or dorsal, the size of it doesn’t matter. In specific regards to blood trails.

Wound size seems to correlate much less to blood trail quality than the blood pressure/volume of the stuff you hit.
I dont disagree with that but would add a caveat that blade sharpness plays a role in blood on the ground too. I have seen some blood trails from really sharp 2 blades create great blood trails where a marginally sharp 3 blade in the exact same location didnt produce a great blood trail.
 
There are a huge number of factors that I think influence blood trails. Things such as wound height on the body, wound through a single layer of hide and ribs opposed to a hit with moving layers of muscle underneath before reaching the body cavity. The type and location of arteries/veins cut, organs punctured, and organs moving after the hit. The research would also suggest blade sharpness and edge finish play a big role in coagulation and hemorrhaging Blood clotting, The Bodies Weapon Against Hemorrhage - Bowhunting Success. If I had to pick any one thing that I think makes the strongest impact on a good blood trail it would be putting 2 holes in the animal and having the exit be low on the animal's body.
I started my reply then got caught on a work call. Blade sharpness definitely matter imo. I agree with 2 holes being best but prefer that they are 3 blade and big if possible. :)
 
I've definitely seen an improvement in blood on the ground from truly shaving sharp broadheads. I also see less flight response when the arrow just slips through them without them noticing it happened. You don't need as good a blood trail if they just hop a short distance, turn around to see what happened before they pass out from blood loss.
 
Last edited:
There are a huge number of factors that I think influence blood trails. Things such as wound height on the body, wound through a single layer of hide and ribs opposed to a hit with moving layers of muscle underneath before reaching the body cavity. The type and location of arteries/veins cut, organs punctured, and organs moving after the hit. The research would also suggest blade sharpness and edge finish play a big role in coagulation and hemorrhaging Blood clotting, The Bodies Weapon Against Hemorrhage - Bowhunting Success. If I had to pick any one thing that I think makes the strongest impact on a good blood trail it would be putting 2 holes in the animal and having the exit be low on the animal's body.
There are some Ashby writings on "The Clotting Cascade" in which he addresses the importance of sharpness and the type of edge. A wound made with a mirror type, honed edge will not clot as fast as a wound made with a rough, file or course stone type edge.
The were (are) proponents of sharpening broad heads with a file. I did it that way for many years. They were shaving sharp but they still had a rough texture. I had some mixed results with blood trails in those days. I've wondered what the the trails would have been had that same wound been made with a polished edge.
 
This is the article. He tested the "Hill style" serrations against a file sharpened finish against a honed and stropped razor-sharp edge. The honed and stropped razor finish out penetrated all other types. So, you get better penetration and a short circuiting of the clotting cascade all in one. The best of all worlds.

Microsoft Word - Getting an Edge on Success (squarespace.com)
 
I'm planning on switching to single bevels this year. I had assumed I'd use screw-in heads with an insert, but have lately been toying with the idea of gluing in a broadhead adapter, spin-tuning it, and then mounting glue-on broadheads. Shafts are 5mm Axis. My thinking is that this would be a stronger setup, with no possibility of anything unscrewing, and that I could alter my tune if I swap broadheads between shafts. I got this idea from the RF video where he describes a dangerous game setup with glue-on Meatheads.

Anybody gone this route? Am I overthinking things? Is this too much of a hassle to be worth it for whitetails?
 
I use Grizzly 190 grain broadheads on 100 grain steel adapters. I use hot melt for the broadheads. That gives me a roughly 300 grain head and I screw that into a 100 grain stainless insert.

Ethics makes a one piece glue in insert that you just glue the broadhead onto. Is that what you were talking about?
 
Back
Top