Marine — all you say makes good sense to me. But what I get from reading the Ashby research is that he is not saying we need this or that for deer, except on rare occasion such as the scapula joint hit you refer to. In such an event it could make all the difference. However, move up to really big tough critters like elk and it’s a different story. In sum, if you’re getting good penetration and consistent recovery on deer with whatever head you prefer to shoot, then you have no motivation to change (except that heavier heads absolutely provide more accurate flight). But if you’re not getting good penetration and losing animals, there’s a weak spot in your system and it’s likely the arrow set-up. But move up to big-big game and I think we’re wise to follow what Ashby’s years of research and lots of individual hunters posting on this site tell us works best — heavy two-blade single-bevel heads with steel hard enough the tip won’t curl or break. Like the ABS ad says, in bowhunting there’s no such thing as overkill. My2cents

Good thread, I like the Ashby reports and what they teach – with that being said for the most part I am shooting 100lb whitetails. I still use some of if not all of his research in building arrows. I even have some of the Ashby heads to use this yr. Before this I mainly used 3 bladed jobbers – and still will but behind that 3 bladed jobber is an 100 grain steel adapter along with an internal footing as Ashby recommends.
Guess my thoughts on the ashby research is to use parts and pieces to optimize your arrow no matter if you tip it with whatever single or double bevel, 2, 3 or 4 bladed. I get better flight charachteristics as well as an arrow that hits like a freight train. Seen many 100lb whitetails that ran off without an exit wound and I WANT that exit wound every time.
Oh yeah that 3 bladed jobber this yr will be single bevel! HAH!

Jason

I think I could take out a ball joint (100lb whitetail) with my setup now and the Ashby head. Really do not want to find out though!!!!:wink:

I’ve given the geometry of the different grind types some thought and have the following to add, this is only superstition as I have no means of demonstrating it.

An equal grind on all faces will ensure even pressure on the blade, assuming the medium to be cut is of equal and even density the path the cutting tool takes will be linear.

Change the grind so that it has a ‘single bevel’ and it will on longer have equal pressure/force on both sides of the cutting face this will result in it prescribing a helix as it travels thru the medium.

I believe this is where the increased tissue damage comes from and the ability to burst thru bone.

Get Out Clause, I’ve not read all of Doc Ashby’s work so he may have covered this and I missed it.

Mark.

I think what your referring too (could be wrong) is the twist a single bevel will do as it passes through. A double bevel will not do this. This rotating motion implies force on bone when it strikes it and helps the bhd split or bust the bone,(know the doc has good pics of this) instead of just trying to slice through as a double bevel has to do.

Also (my interest) is that the rotating motion causes more tissue damage even with no bone strike. I made this point on another forum (NOT bringing the arguement here) and was asked why this would be a plus? as little broadside whitetails are not very thick. Even little whitatails I shoot are at least 8 inches thick or thicker and a quartering shot is a naturally longer cut, so I do believe this rotating motion is a big plus.

Anyway I think this is what you were talking about? I can go see if I remember which study this info was in. Mr. Peterson probably remembers which one it was by heart.

Jason

Bloodless said, “(except that heavier heads absolutely provide more accurate flight)”

That is not necessarily correct. First, you don’t specify what heavier means, and at any rate, accuracy comes from tuning and is not predicated on point weight, and is subject to the form of the archer. It can aid in accuracy perhaps if you are borderline stiff and the tip weight brings you to true spine and proper flight, but in real life a well tuned arrow can be the way it always has been, and be as accurate as any other….regardless of tip weight. Accuracy is in repeatable form and well tuned arrows…..period.

I would suggest that everything we do has a point of diminishing returns and that should guide us. We already know what has worked, and we have opportunity to play with weights and fronts of center to see if it helps us individually. It will not be for everyone, but some folks may find that side to their liking. I’m from that old school that says don’t fix it if it ain’t broken.

Smoke ’em if you got ’em.

USMC and Pothunter, you guys have an intelligent, open-minded and interesting discussion going here.

USMC — you sound like quite an intelligent man … you sure you were a Marine? :lol::wink::D:):P:P Semper Fi (takes on to know one)

George — your favorite point of “don’t fix what ain’t broke” is well taken, and as you suggest, for those who feel they have it wired with no improvement needed or wanted,and who aren’t recreational “tinkerers,” well there you go. But keep in mind that the Ashby forum was created specifically for folks who enjoy tinkering, experimenting, playing around with archery in general and testing Ashby’s results for themselves in particular, without being bullied when they discuss it, as happens on some sites. I’m not saying you’re bullying, ’cause you’re not. I’m just trying to explain “where we are coming from here” in hopes that you can get more comfy with it. So far as heavy heads, my experience has been same as Bloodie’s — as weight goes up, so goes accuracy. Ashby explains it in lever-arm terms. It offers one reassurance — that you can use heavier heads without spoiling tune — plus one tiny advantage for those interested in eeking out max speed (which I personally am not), and for EFOC hogs (which I am), to wit: with more weight up front, you need less fletching to achieve the same relative accuracy. If only a tiny bit, smaller feathers offers the potential to increase both speed and penetration. For me, everyday practice would be a lot less interesting if I just shot what worked when I was 14 and never “messed around” with new possibilities. Also, it’s a great excuse to keep building more arrows than I need, as I really enjoy building arrows. 😀

Cheers, dave

Dave I have 4 nephews serving right now all of them USMC.

And I agree, if it aint broke, don’t fix it.

George, I’ll just come out and say that I’m glad you weren’t around when the Wright brothers were tinkering with things that were never supposed to fly.

Mr. Stout’s comment on diminishing returns is very true as through my messin with setup i.e… ruining some arras! I found that trajectory can get to be too much for my likeing and I realize I may have pushed a little too far. On the other hand I am still messing and looking for that exact point of diminishing returns threshhold.
At this time I am going to have to go from a 400 axis to a 340 – with a little more spine I can do a little more up front and still keep the trajectory I am comfortable with!> HAH 😆
No I am not a speed demon or I would have one of those techno gadgets; but I like pushing out to 25 yards (my max on critters even when I shot a techno gadget) and doing so with out having to aim at passing jets to hit a target in my back yard. 😉

Alright boys, this topic seems to have moved into the FOC thing too. So I’ll add my observations / question on the topics.

This year I am going to use the Aboyer Wapiti head for the first time. It looks like a nice head and I have six sitting on the mantle ready to go.

My arrow’s are flying great with a 300 grain field tip. But I haven’t tried a heavier one cause I can’t find any. And I have to say it’s so big it’s starting to look pornographic out there on the end of my arrow… 😯

Anybody found heavier field tips?

Steve, you may have to improvise with some weight washers up front behind the head, just be careful with that thing in public.

Going back to what we were discussing earlier single bevel wound characteristics and path I mentioned this to a friend who has spent far to long at university and his comments are as follows:

‘One of the instructors on the course I’m going on did part of his masters degree in studying the wound channel and penetration of broadheads into animals. He did it as a Uni project shooting from known power bows at known distances into (dead, obviously) pigs torso’s and measuring and reporting on the results

I will speak to him next week and see if he can answer, If not when I get back I will dig out some of my books on dynamics. This is something you could calculate (approximately) as this would be sufficient enough work to commission a research project into, not a 10 minute job!’

I suggested that he was unlikely to get a commission but Tradbow might publish his work, and it is for the greater good of the community and he should just be grateful he can help, well that met with silence, students.

I await with interest his comments, Mark.

Back to the original topic….I have, and shoot very accurately, the 150 grain Wensel Woodsman 3 blade. Great head. It neatly center-punched through an off-side rib on the last deer I killed, a whitetail doe at about 23 yards, slightly quartering away. Great heads…BUT, I can definitely see the benefit to having a broadhead with less surface area, as this causes friction, which causes less penetration. I also have in my possession, half a dozen 160 grain screw-in Grizzly single bevels. They fly equally as well as the Wensels, which is great, because I don’t have to do any kind of tuning to my current arrows. Anyway, that’s all beside my point. I did a little backyard test with each broadhead on identical arrows. What I did, was I took two pieces of T&G pine, identical in all physical respects, at least to my eyes (no knots, similar grain patterns, same length, etc.) and shot one broadhead into each board at approximately 5 yards. I believe both shots were basically identical in all respects, minus possible minor human flaw. The results were interesting. The Grizzly completely penetrated the board, plus approximately 3 1/2 to 4 inches of shaft, whereas the Woodsman did NOT completely penetrate the board. In fact, the very back of the blades on the Woodsman didn’t even completely clear the front face of the board. Both boards had approximately a 3/8 to 1/2″ split running lengthwise, but the extra blade on the Woodsman kept the head from penetrating completely. I have pictures somewhere, but must first locate them within the tangled jungle of my computer’s hard drive. LOL.

After I saw the results of the two shots, side by side, I decided that I liked the penetration characteristics of the 2-blade much better than the characteristics of the 3-blade. I’ll still keep the 3-blades to put on small-game arrows and for back-ups, but the 2-blades will become my primary hunting heads.

Michael.

Oh, and just a side-note…these arrows were roughly 585 grains with a mid-teen FOC. Nothing fancy about them…just plain old aluminum arrows.

Michael — I wish more folks would experiment for themselves, rather than just sit back and argue for “what’s always worked for me.” Boards aren’t flesh or bone, but the differences you saw are nonetheless indicative. My own comparative head penetration tests have been in thick dense foam, and with similar results — 2-blades always out-penetrate multi-blades, and single-bevels always outpenetrate double-bevels. Same for EFoC vs. standard, and heavy shafts vs. light. For me at least, these experimental games have translated precisely to the same results on elk, whether I hit bone or not. Your board test would come closer to bone, while my foam is closer to flesh. Photos would be great if you can find them. dave

Ok, I tried to make them smaller…Wouldn’t let me. Anyway, here are the pictures from my experiment between a 3 blade 150 grain Woodsman and a 2 blade single bevel 160 grain Grizzly. Both are screw-in heads on identical shafts.

Michael.

Ok, I lied. The 2 blade had to split the board AROUND a small knot in the wood. LOL.

Oh, and the Woodsman was hunting sharp, whereas the Grizzly had just a rough factory grind on it. And ya know what?:?::arrow: It STILL beat the 3-blade hands down. :lol::twisted:

Michael.

And another thing….the WW’s tip will curl if it hits hard bone. The Grizz won’t:wink: Just my personal experience, that’s all. I’m just say’n.

Brett

USMC 82-86 wrote: Brett,

I appreciate your response, but I understand the new woodsman elite has a pyramid tip now which would probably provide a little more strength.

…but it is for the cost of reduced penetration.

I appreciate your response, but I understand the new woodsman elite has a pyramid tip now which would probably provide a little more strength.

If I am not mistaken the “woodsman elite” is not just an improved “woodsman”. They are two totally different broadheads because the “woodsman elite” is a VPA Terminator that is called “woodsman elite” in some circles.

USMC 82-86 wrote: That’s pretty impressive. Do you think if the woodsman was 10 grains heavier that it would have penetrated completely or would the 10 grains not have made enough difference?

I still think that was pretty nice penetration either way you look at it with both heads. The single bevel did take top honors here. I will concede that fact, but the shot was at 5 yds with no other material encountered, such as hide and muscle. My question is would the same shot at 15-20 yds have produced the same results? I am just curious if either arrow would have had the energy to penetrate bone after passing through the hide, muscle,ligaments and tendons at 15-20 yds?

I did see the photo with the 4 inches out the other side
of the board but no other medium was encountered. My guess is, at 5 yds the results may have been the same with a little less penetration if hide, muscle,ligaments and tendons been encountered. Thoughts, I am willing to listen.

I don’t think that another 10 grains on the Woodsman would have made a difference in the penetration. I don’t believe that the head would have cleared the back of the board.

I’ll see what I can come up with for a longer distance test between the two broadheads, and post pictures of that as well. I don’t have any more of the wood I used for those test shots, but I’ll find something else similar. And I’m conjuring up in my mind a second “medium” for the arrow to pass through. And believe me, I have a REALLY good idea for that “medium” :twisted::lol::twisted: AND, to make it better, I’ll even shoot from 15 yards. The broadheads will be the same, too…factory grind on the 2 blade, and a hunting-sharp Woodsman.

Michael.

P.S. I looked up both the VPA Terminator and the Woodsman ELITE. The VPA is made by Zipper Bows, also known as Zipper Manufacturing in Ohio. I don’t know who makes the Woodsman ELITE, but my understanding is that only 3 Rivers Archery carries them, because they have the patent of whatever on the Woodsman broadheads. I know that the lighter weight (100, 125, 150 gr) Woodsman’s are a vented broadhead, while the heavier (175, 200, 250 gr) heads are non-vented. Going off of the pictures I was able to find, the VPA’s are all non-vented. Also, the ELITE’s are all screw-in models, from 100 gr to 250 gr. VPA offers two heads that are glue-on, in 160 and 190 grains. The VPA’s also are only available in 175, 200, 250 and 300 grains. Also, as far as the pictures are concerned, the basics of the heads ARE very similar, but may not be identical in all aspects. Anyway, this is what I found about the VPA Terminator vs. the Woodsman ELITE.

P.P.S USMC 82-86, just curious…how old were you when you went in to the USMC? I was born in 81.

USMC 82-86,
I have absolutely no idea what it is like to loose your soldier buddies. Not a clue but I am very sorry that happened.

That date was 4 days before I turned 16 yrs. old and two months before I killed my first deer. You were part of allowing me to do that.

All this traditional bowhunting stuff we like to do is really nice and wonderful.
But USMC 82-86… I can’t tell you how much I appreciate what you have done for me, my family and this country so I can enjoy traditional archery and so many things that I have the freedom to pursue, including happiness.

Thank you sir,

Richie

Hi All, I’m new on here,but not new to traditional bowhunting! I have spent some time testing different heads for hunting! My findings are pretty much the same as everyone else! But i do have a question about single bevels vs. double bevels(something i’m having trouble to prove thru testing) Does a single bevel(being matched left bevel,left wing fletch or visa a versa) impart more spin on your arrow in flight thus making the arrow fly more accurate? I realize that in the animal it does such! Just wondering what you all think!!

What I “think” is that is doesn’t have a measureable affect in flight, just when meeting a stiffer resistance. But could be totally wrong. Only a very few times I have shot a single right bevel Grizzly with a left wing fletch arrow. The arrow spun left until it hit the target then twisted right.

Richie

Some time ago, in a past issue of Traditional Bowhunter, I believe there was an article on a similar topic. The topic question was more or less “Does a right wing feather matched to a right-handed shooter make them more accurate than a left wing for a right handed shooter” and I believe the information in the article pointed to a strong “YES”.

Perhaps Robin could find this article for us at some point, should she get a break from running the magazine and keeping TJ in line. LOL.

One thing to keep in mind, if you choose to shoot left wing feathers with a right bevel broadhead, is that the left-direction spin of the arrow actually has to stop in order for the broadhead to begin spinning ITS direction into the target, which will reduce penetration, possibly to a large degree on, say, a bone hit. If the arrow is already spinning the direction the broadhead will spin, it should actually help increase penetration, because then the arrow doesn’t have to stop its rotation in order to reverse itself.

Michael.

Oh yea..totally agree on the loosing a little horsepower using unmatched twisiting.

Being righthanded I always have shot right wing and shoot right bevel. However, I have often wondered whey SO many right handers shoot left wing feathers. What am I missing?

Richie

Richie,

My understanding is that because turkey feathers are used for the majority of our feathers for arrows, it comes down to the turkey farmers clipping the primary feathers on the right wing of the bird. They did this to keep their turkeys from “flying the coop” so to speak. Anybody that has seen turkeys a fair bit knows that they are pretty strong fliers and can get outta Dodge in a hurry on the wing. For whatever reason, they primarily chose to clip the feathers on the right wings of the birds. Thus the right wing feathers were ruined, leaving the left wing feathers to sell to archery suppliers. Or at least, that is my understanding of why so many people shoot left-wing feathers on their arrows.

Michael.

I have read all the TBM Ashby articles and most of his research in the library here, and the way I recall it is that, as Michael and others say here, single bevel and feather twist matching is important for penetration, but has no notable influence on flight since the feathers greatly overcome those little broadhead edges as wind planes. However, Ed cautions against miss-matching as it can actually decrease penetration, whereas the whole idea behind single-bevel heads is to enhance penetration. This, in addition to sharpening challenges, was long a problem with the Grizzly single-bevels which came only in right-bevel while most feathers turn left. I now have some of the new El Grande 200 grains in left-bevel, which fly like A4’s, and which I plan to use for elk this year. Of course, several other broadhead makers are now offering right and left bevel aside from Grizzly. There’s simply no point in miss-matching. bloodless (not really)

MontanaFord wrote: Some time ago, in a past issue of Traditional Bowhunter, I believe there was an article on a similar topic. The topic question was more or less “Does a right wing feather matched to a right-handed shooter make them more accurate than a left wing for a right handed shooter” and I believe the information in the article pointed to a strong “YES”.

Perhaps Robin could find this article for us at some point, should she get a break from running the magazine and keeping TJ in line. LOL.

One thing to keep in mind, if you choose to shoot left wing feathers with a right bevel broadhead, is that the left-direction spin of the arrow actually has to stop in order for the broadhead to begin spinning ITS direction into the target, which will reduce penetration, possibly to a large degree on, say, a bone hit. If the arrow is already spinning the direction the broadhead will spin, it should actually help increase penetration, because then the arrow doesn’t have to stop its rotation in order to reverse itself.

Michael.

I can’t find anything in the index that it was an article in TBM. If it was in Dennis’ tips I don’t keep track of those. What I did find was an old forum thread where this topic was discussed.

https://www.tradbow.com/members/cfmbb/messages.cfm?threadid=44405BC5-1422-1DE9-EDBB0D78CB99C6F6

I’d better go see what T.J. is doing, now that you mention it. 😯 I think he was looking for a bazooka for grasshoppers.

Well, now that’s a bummer. I know there’s something about matching the feathers to the shooter’s dominant side somewhere. I remember it. I just don’t remember who wrote it or what issue it was in. LOL. Chalk one up to “old timer’s disease.”

Michael.

But I WILL find it.

The regular Woodsmans and the Elites/VPA Terminators have very similar if not the same basic dimensions. The difference is in the construction. The regulars have a conventional construction with separate blade and ferrule pieces welded together. The Elites/VPA’s are machined from a single piece of tool grade steel. Very precise, strong and a harder steel.

I’ve used the Woodsmans with both the needle and pyramid tips. The pyramid is still a sharp COC point and loses nothing in penetration, it just doesn’t curl.

Right hand shooters often use left wing feathers because the quill clocks such that it clears the shelf better. I know that if I shoot RW, the quill cuts my finger. I normally fletch LW for a RH shooter and RW for a LH shooter unless asked to do otherwise.

I shoot right handed and have shot both right and left wing and can’t tell any difference. With left wing I shoot cock feather out, with right wing cock feather in. When shooting right wing, if I don’t go in I sometimes get cut by the feather. It depends upon how close my hand is to the shelf which of course is based on the handle of the bow.

2blade wrote: When shooting right wing, if I don’t go in I sometimes get cut by the feather.

That is why I recommend left wing for right hand shooters and vice versa. You’re correct tho, both will work. Rick

One other aspect of the eternal 2,3, or 4 blade debate that is rarely mentioned is penetration issues when bone of any size is hit. Here’s somthing to ponder- When a 2 blade head hits a bone (heavy or light) the BH has to break that bone in just one direction in order to pass through that bone and reach the vital organs. A 4 blade head will need to break the same bone in 2 directions to accomplish the same thing, and a 3 blade head will need to break the same bone in three sepeate directions to get through it. It takes far more energy to break a bone 3 times than it does to break it once and that means the arrow tipped with a 3 blade head looses far more of it’s limited energy to accomplish the same amount of penetration that a 2 blade will. Once again, the 2 blade head will have a much greater chance of achieving a full pass through than the 3 blade will.

Secondly, while it can be done with a perfect shot getting a complete pass through with a three blade without setting of the mental alarm bells in the animal and triggering an intense flight response from the animal with a three blade head is rare. Even with a perfect shot the animal is gonna head for the hills and a longer, more difficult tracking job is often the result.

Ron

Ron,

I agree with you on all of the above. 2 blades definitely break through easier. I got lucky on the last deer I shot with a Wensel. She took a couple hops and stood on the edge of the trees looking around like “What just happened?” and then just walked away. I found her about 20 yards back in the sticks on an old grown up logging road. She could have bailed for the other side of the ridge, and I’da had a hard time finding her, because I hit her about mid-way up the body, and she basically bled out inside her chest cavity. Almost no blood on the ground. A few specks here and there, and I was looking for her in the dark with a flashlight.

Michael.

is there any video or photographs to prove this rotation caused by single bevel. I read the articles Dr Ashby had in either TBM or PBS….but was it TRUE rotation or just deflection from way it hit the bone?

Shot Zwickeys, Snuffers and Ribteks…and will try the Grizzly once I run out of ribbies (just bought 36 more lol)…..

I personally have never seen a difference in arrow flight no matter if right or left handed in using right or left fletching…other than as stated..on a selfbow it keeps the fletching from cutting web of left hand sometimes.

I would like to see someone do a test with maybe equal weight or near equal weight Grizzly/STOS/Ribtek vs the Ashby Head…same shafting, fletching, bow, etc…..maybe 10 shots each against the same setup. We are not machines so placement wont be perfect but might be easier to put 60 leg bones in ballistics gel and set up a Shooting Machine for consistent draw, weight, flight, etc. maybe one of these larger broadhead or arrow companies will volunteer.

This should settle the discussion to ensure it is scientific rather than a snapshot in time of an event.

Great discussions and reading and makes us think no matter whether we swallow it all or not.

Ron — It’s always good to insist on “prove it to me.” In the case of Ashby’s work, keep in mind that nothing he reports is “a snapshot in time” but has been repeated many times under conditions as controlled as possible, showing a consistent pattern. From your wording it seems you are making a distinction between the ABS Ashby head and other single-bevels like Grizzly. That’s not the case. Although the thicker single-bevels, like ABS and Brown Bear, have the advantage of thicker blades, thus wider bevels for more twist and better blone-splitting, Ashby has never favored a particular head but rather reports the strong points and weak points of different heads. Anyhow, I have done a great deal of “backyard” field testing of Ashby’s findings myself — as have many others here, for instance Kingwouldbe — and we have found total consistencyw ith his results. In most cases on most game, we can make consistent clean kills with any proven head design, given extreme sharpness, good arrow placement and a bit of luck — that is, no glancing bone hits, etc. But when we get into less-than-perfect hits and really big animals like elk, following Ashby’s advice definitely gives us a significant degree of insurance. Remember, broadhead design is but one in a litany of recommendations — including arrow weight and FoC — that combine for the most deadly possible arrow system. If I hunted only smallish deer I might not feel I need this extra edge of assurance, but I’d do it anyhow as there’s nothing to lose and the experimentation is fun. Thanks for your good questions. Dave

Brock63″-Quote: is there any video or photographs to prove this rotation caused by single bevel. I read the articles Dr Ashby had in either TBM or PBS….but was it TRUE rotation or just deflection from way it hit the bone?…

…I would like to see someone do a test with maybe equal weight or near equal weight Grizzly/STOS/Ribtek vs the Ashby Head…same shafting, fletching, bow, etc…..maybe 10 shots each against the same setup. We are not machines so placement wont be perfect but might be easier to put 60 leg bones in ballistics gel and set up a Shooting Machine for consistent draw, weight, flight, etc. maybe one of these larger broadhead or arrow companies will volunteer.

Ron,

There’s really no need for any large scale study to prove whether it’s true rotation caused by a single bevel blade design or just deflection. You can prove it yourself in less than a minute… Just go to your kitchen, get out a single bevel knife (serrated or not) and attempt to cut a straight, uniform slice off a potatoe, cucumber or other med-hard vegetable…It’s almost impossible to do because the single bevel design will “steer” the blade in a uniform curve unless we add counter pressure and even then it’s difficult to cut a straight line. In the case of a BHD, the rotation is even greater because there are two bevels applying the rotational force. Try it and let us know your thoughts.

Ron

sharpster wrote:
There’s really no need for any large scale study to prove whether it’s true rotation caused by a single bevel blade design or just deflection. You can prove it yourself in less than a minute… Just go to your kitchen, get out a single bevel knife (serrated or not) and attempt to cut a straight, uniform slice off a potatoe, cucumber or other med-hard vegetable…It’s almost impossible to do because the single bevel design will “steer” the blade in a uniform curve unless we add counter pressure and even then it’s difficult to cut a straight line. In the case of a BHD, the rotation is even greater because there are two bevels applying the rotational force. Try it and let us know your thoughts.

Ron

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Sharpster…I understand your reasoning with a kitchen kife but it is held horizontal to cutting direction and attempting to go straight down rather than puncturing as a broadhead would. Your explanation is for slicing across blade. The broadhead is slicing ALONG the blade so the angles you are referring would not be as influential in my opinion. To me it is like comparing the effects of lift on an airplane wings trailing edge compared to that of its leading edge if I am making any sense.

Can you get the knife to turn in your hand the same way if you push it through a watermelon rather than trying to slice a piece off the end? I wonder how much the pivot point of the instrument depends…broadhead is center balanced but knife is usually in line with top tang except in daggers.

I never have had a knife whether hunting, kitchen or bayonet react in that way when penetrating rather than slicing. I am not trying to be contentious but would like to see how you determine something is truly rotating by its design when penetrating rather than reacting to different densities through its forward penetrating travel.

We know the arrow rotates if it has helical fletching..could it be that heavy FOC arrows just “continue” that rotation more efficiently with the 200+grain heads at those ranges? Just asking…

Dave…thanks for your response too. I am just an inquisitive guy…and no I am not from Missouri (Show Me State) LOL. I understand he shoots and test quite a lot…have followed him for years. I was a bit surprised though at his single bevel comments of them being that influential in arrow penetration. I see rotation as a loss of energy just as much as I see multiple blades and blunt tips.

If someone can help me find it…I would like to see the Ashby report on the same exact broadhead with both double and single bevels to read again…thanks in advance. Other than shot placement this might refresh my mind and answer some additional questions I have boiling in my brain. LOL

How much rotation are we talking during a say, 20 inch wound channel?

thanks in advance for any other info I can absorb…sounds like I need to go back and re-read some of the Ashby files to make sure I am remembering them correctly. I hope some of you more informed in his tests and reports can help me a bit…

thanks again.

Hi again Ron,

This should help. Check out the Ashby library here on TB, the study entitled “Why single bevel broadheads”. Ed constructed a shaft with a roller bearing mounted in the nock so that no twist of any kind could be imparted by hand and pushed a large double bevel BHD through a potato and then did the same with a smaller single bevel head. The large double bevel pushed completely though the potato in a straight line and exited the opposite end leaving a straight through and through “wound channel”. The smaller single bevel split the potato cleanly in half before the point even emerged from the opposite end. There are pictures showing the rotation and Ed gives a far better explaination than I could hope to. Here’s the link:

https://www.tradbow.com/members/223print.cfm

Ron

thanks…will check it out.

sharpster wrote: Hi again Ron,

This should help. Check out the Ashby library here on TB, the study entitled “Why single bevel broadheads”. Ed constructed a shaft with a roller bearing mounted in the nock so that no twist of any kind could be imparted by hand and pushed a large double bevel BHD through a potato and then did the same with a smaller single bevel head. The large double bevel pushed completely though the potato in a straight line and exited the opposite end leaving a straight through and through “wound channel”. The smaller single bevel split the potato cleanly in half before the point even emerged from the opposite end. There are pictures showing the rotation and Ed gives a far better explaination than I could hope to. Here’s the link:

https://www.tradbow.com/members/223print.cfm

Ron

So would that help with the 2 blade hole closing and not leaving a blood trail or a very good trail?

Dave

Hi Dave,

I’m writing this with a grin on my face… the phrase “two blade slit” gets my blood pressure up pretty quick. That said, single bevel broadheads do most often leave either “S” shaped or “L” shaped entrance/exit holes which do tend to encourage good blood flow. Better stop right there before I start another argument…:wink:

Ron

I hope i dont get in trouble for chiming in on an older topic, but ive been trying to decide between the woodsman and the el grande grizz all summer. My cousin who has been hunting with a recurve for 20 years has used both, and its been his experience that the grizzlys dont leave as good of a blood trail. No doubt about the penetration, im totally convinced of that, but my only hesetation on the matter is the blood trail. Can anybody put my fears to rest on this one? Not trying to start anythin, just so happens ive been thinking on this one for a while.

I understand the last comment, but id still like a little more convincing.
Phil

Hi Phil,

Well you had to go and open that can of worms now didn’t you? This is a perfect example of what I mean about the 3 blade “hole” leaving a better blood trail than the two blade “slit” argument. Here’s the painful truth of the matter. The amount of blood left on the ground is primarily influenced by 3 critical factors (although there are other less influential factors too). The big 3 are in order of importance:

1) Shot placement
2) The level of broadhead sharpness
3) The presents or absence of an exit wound

I’m a devout 2 blade shooter but even so, given the choice between shooting an animal with a wicked sharp 3 blade or a pretty sharp 2 blade head, I’ll take the wicked sharp 3 blade every time because it’s not the broadheads size or blade count that matters most, it’s the level of sharpness and how that relates to and influences the internal physiological responses triggered in any animal by any form of cutting of tissue (lacerating wound). (Wow, that even sounds complicated to me). The science is there to support my argument but lets try and simplify it for a minute. I recently cut the back of my right leg on a pretty dang sharp piece of sheetmetal. Cut is an understatement, opened it up like a zippered pouch is more like it. Haven’t had a wound like that in years. Right though skin, fat, and about ¾” deep into the muscle tissue and about 3 inches long. Nasty for sure. Now here’s the cool part- It didn’t bleed at all. I mean not at all. Less than ¼ teaspoon in the 1 ½ hours it took till it was closed up. Now why is that? Because although the “blade” was plenty sharp enough to cut me it wasn’t sharp enough to trigger the massive hemorrhage that we’d expect from this type of wound. Conversely, why does a shaving nick bleed forever? Simple, because the cut of a true razor edge cuts each individual microscopic capillary and blood vessel perfectly cleanly. They may be only microscopic blood vessels but the cut ends are wide open and the blood just flows and flows. A cut from a semi-sharp blade on the other hand tears as much as it cuts. As a result those tiny blood vessels have many loose and ragged ends which are extremely helpful to the body’s natural clotting response. The duller the blade is, the rougher the cut will be and even though the rough cut causes far more cellular damage than a surgically sharp blade will, the surgically sharp blade will produce copious amounts of free flowing blood. In fact, the greater level of cellular damage is the cause of the rapid clotting because the more cellular damage to the tissue the greater the body’s clotting response will be. In short, the duller the blade, the greater the cellular damage and therefore the greater the natural clotting response. The sharper the blade the less cellular damage and the less natural clotting response. (translation- the amount of blood on the ground is directly related to the level of BHD sharpness).

I guess I should let Ed explain it. I’m sure he’ll do a far better job than I ever could. As for your cousins experiences with the 3 blades and Grizzlies, I wasn’t there but I can only suspect that either the 3 blade heads he was shooting were quite a bit sharper than the Grizzlies or maybe the shot placement was better but if I had to bet, I’d say the Grizzlies just weren’t sharp enough. I get photos of animals and bloodtrails sent to me that are so bloody that I can’t even post them on the internet… and the vast majority of them were caused by the infamous 2 blade slit.

Ed, Can you add to this? Thanks,

Ron

Ron, thanks for the quick and in depth reply! That was exactly the can of worms i wass looking for. Your comments on the blade sharpness make perfect sence. And now that you mention it, i do remember having talked with my cousin in the past about how hard it was to sharpen grizzlys. Could be he just wasnt getting his sharp enough. Thanks for the insight, that pretty much settled everything for me. I have always heard about how well the grizzlys penetrated, but never heard anything about the blood loss. Seems like when people talk about penetration, they always talk about the grizz, when they talk about massive blood trails, its always the woodsman. Could be the real problem is just getting them sharp. Thanks!

This is the first time ive been on this site, been on all the other trad/primitive archery sites, and so far from what ive read, im very impressed with the atitude here. I might just stick around for a while…

Phil

My take on a few of these subjects.
#1 the single bevel head is nothing new,,we had a manufacture here in NZ during the 70’s an 80’s making a knock off of the glue on Bear Razorhead,,his version was a single bevel.
At one stage I ran out of Bear Razors so I bought half a dozen of these single bevel copys,,,they performed no better an no worse than the Bears,,,but then I was shooting goats with then,,not Rinos or water Buffalo,,so I wouldn’t of seen anything different unless they were actualy rubbish anyway I guess.
Woodsman heads? “I first tried them about 3 years ago and shot through two Red Deer with them,wasn’t happy about the size of the hole they left,,,but then realised there was blood “everywhere” and both deer traveled less than 30 yards,so altered my opinion pretty quick.
I did have issues with the quality contol in as much as the blades were not perfectly straight,which left dips along their length that required you really take more steel off than it should of.
The new ones no longer have this problem and I find them easy to get hair shaving sharp after setting the edge with a mill file.
All in all I’ve used about 10 different brands of cut on contact broadheads of single bevel,double bevel and 3 blade over the years,and I’ve never had one I wasn’t happy enough with.
There are a few I prefer over others,Tuskers,glue on Bear Razors,Snuffers and Woodsman,but I’m not going to fret if I have to shoot something else because they all work anyway.
FOC,,,most of the arrows recovered from the Mary Rose had Tappered shafts,Thousands of them.
Tappered shafts were the main shaft shot,,,there had to be very vaild reasons to go to that extent when the parrallel shaft would of been so much easier to build in those numbers.
It certainly seems that somewhere along the road modern archers in the new world “being lead by manufacturing costs” lost the old world skills in building arrows that we’ve only resently started to claw back.
English longbow target archers have always used tappered,barreled an brested shafts to obtain optimum flight.
I won’t load up on wheight to gain xtra FOC myself,but I do build tappered wood arrows to achieve the same flight chracteristics without the lose of tradjectory typical of XFOC.
No offence ment to Dr Ashby,but I don’t need to read his reports,,because it’s all in our shared history anyway,,we only have to research to find it.
There really is nothing new in this game,people that needed it to survive worked it out hundreds of years ago.

John.

John Carter wrote: There really is nothing new in this game,people that needed it to survive worked it out hundreds of years ago.
John.

John, you are SO correct. If you like seeing some of the ‘technical archery knowledge’ of so called ‘primitive bowhunters’ we’ve somehow lost, you’ll enjoy reading Papua New Guinea’s Bows and Arrows. Here’s the link.

https://www.tradbow.com/members/310.cfm

Ed

Sharpster,

To understand why the thinnest, smoothest and sharpest edge works best requires a basic understanding of the processes involved in physologic responses that cause hemorrhaging and clotting. It’s a lengthy explination, but the upcoming article in TBM covers the full explination of the hemorrhaging cascade.

Ed

When we castrate bull calves we don’t use a sharp knife to sever the testicles. Instead you grab each testicle and then extend or pull down on the vas deferens at the same time winding it around your pointer finger then yanking it out. This leaves a ragged torn end which does not bleed or bleeds very little. If you were to slice it with a knife it would bleed like hell. This is an extreme example of a ragged vs clean cut, but I thought it might illustrate the point better.

Brett

Brett, now that’s an example that has never crossed my mind!

Ed

Steertalker wrote: When we castrate bull calves we don’t use a sharp knife to sever the testicles. Instead you grab each testicle and then extend or pull down on the vas deferens at the same time winding it around your pointer finger then yanking it out. This leaves a ragged torn end which does not bleed or bleeds very little. If you were to slice it with a knife it would bleed like hell. This is an extreme example of a ragged vs clean cut, but I thought it might illustrate the point better.

Brett

For some reason I have a stomach ache, 😯