Home Forums Bows and Equipment Appropriate discussion?

Viewing 113 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Hunting season is well underway and I’ve been watching a few forums for wounding/loss threads. By the comments posted it seems that many folks (perhaps most) feel that even mentioning wounding and loss of game is inappropriate; that it merely provides fuel for anti-hunters. The following two quotes are pretty typical of what appears to be a majority opinion.

      Discussions on the ways to lower the % ARE best done out of the limelight.

      I agree … may be used as fuel for the anti’s. Something we should avoid at all costs.

      I disagree. We all know that game is wounded and lost, and so do all the anti-hunters (and nothing we say – or don’t say – is going to alter any anti-hunter’s mindset anyway). It’s those ‘on the fence’ that might be influenced. I feel it is far better for bowhunters to be seen as trying to address the issue, doing all we can to minimize the wounding/loss rate than to be seen as trying to ‘cover up’ information about wounding and loss. To that end there’s no better situation than the examination of shots that fail, with the goal of trying to address things that could have been done that would have lessened the odds of the shot resulting in a wounding hit. Here are a few excerpts from some of the wounded and lost postings. I couldn’t help but add a few comments of my own, which I’ve placed in bold type and clearly marked.

      … approx 12-14 yards … he ducked and was moving back from the direction he came … hit him a bit high and a bit back (mid body back) … ran into the ravine with the arrow sticking out, at least eight inch penetration … 53# at my draw, cedar arrow with Zwickey 4 blade (bleeders)

      [bold] Maximizing your arrow’s penetration potential is always a good idea when bowhunting big game. There’s no such thing as a big game arrow that penetrates TOO MUCH! Something about this setup inhibited the arrow’s penetration. It could be the quality of arrow flight. A hit “a bit high and a bit back” might have impacted the back ribs, near the spine. If so, then the bone penetration quality and skip angle of the broadhead become penetration limiting factors, as does the broadhead’s Mechanical Advantage (MA). The animal’s movement also has a penetration reducing effect, which is another good reason for using an arrow with (what many seem to consider) “over-penetration” for a deer sized animal. It’s impossible to know exactly where this hit was placed, or the angle of the arrow in the deer, but more penetration MIGHT well have made a huge difference on this hit, and certainly would not have lessened the chance of recovery. – Ed [/bold]

      I shot a buck with a 160 Snuffer, little forward. As he took off I saw more arrow sticking out then I expected. However, looked to be at least 4″ (which would put the arrow in the front lung) … I tracked him through the cover, with plenty of blood … I lost all blood on the edge of the picked corn field. Searched on my hands and knees for 4 hours. NOTHING! Very disapointing!

      [bold] When ‘things go wrong’, a broadhead with a low MA always has an adverse effect on penetration. Having a double lung hit and an exit would certainly have helped. Bigger (cut area) does not always mean better!– Ed [/bold]

      My family used to own a meat packing house. You could not imagine what a buck can survive. Deer have been brought in with entire arrows inside, lots of gunshot scars from previous years, an unnumberable amount of broadheads inside deer over the years

      [bold] I constantly read that “not much penetration is needed for an arrow to be adequate for deer size game”. Sounds like more than a few folks are not ‘blowing through’ every deer they hit. Over-penetration leaves a lot fewer broadheads in game too! – Ed [/bold]

      Hit him a little too far forward… and in the shoulder and didn’t get very good penetration… finally lost the trail in the neighborhood of 300-400 yards from start… NOTHING.

      … hit him on the shoulder blade and failed to penetrate in the chest cavity.

      Heavy shoulder hit, little penetration, LOTS of blood … followed a very good blood trail over two and a half hours. Shoulder hits are rarely fatal. If your not in the vital organs he will not bleed to death.

      [bold] “Shoulder hits are rarely fatal”? Really? On deer sized game I generally aim ON the shoulder. (NOTE: I DID NOT SAY I AIM AT THE SHOULDER BONES). The mid-shoulder area is only meat, with underlying ribs. Aiming there reduces the hits ‘too far back’, and I can comfortable do so because I’ve tested my setup thoroughly and KNOW that, should my shot hit a bone in the shoulder, it is more than capable of penetrating ANY bone to be found there. The ability of the broadhead we CHOSE to use to penetrate bone can make the difference between getting through a shoulder bone, and when a ‘good bone-performance’ broadhead is used on an arrow with a mass above the heavy bone threshold penetrating through the shoulder bones of a deer, and into the thorax, becomes the likely outcome. I reiterate, maximizing your arrow’s penetration potential is ALWAYS a good idea when bowhunting big game. There’s no such thing as a big game arrow that penetrates TOO MUCH! – Ed [/bold]

      Unfortunately it is a part of our hunting that happens … The arrow once released is beyond our control. Since we are shooting a moveable and excitable target sometimes the best shot can result in the worst hit. What can we do to help cut down the occurances of wounds…..practice with our equipment so we can be the best we can be……only take high percentage shots at stationary and relaxed targets…..always be sure we are shooting in our comfort range, don’t say I only shoot 15 yards then blaze away at a buck at 30 just cause he was a monster.

      [bold] What? Not even a mention of maximizing the terminal performance of the arrow we CHOSE to use? Is the assumption that all arrow setups work equally well, on every type of hit? – Ed [/bold]

      I messed up on a great 130″ class 8ptr in NJ 2 years ago when I was 17 feet up and he was another 4 or 5 feet down hill but only 7 yards away … richoched off ribs, slid down the briscuit and into the ground. No blood, just some hair and fatty meat on arrow.

      [bold] No mention of the broadhead used, but this is clearly a skip angle issue. Using broadheads with good skip angles reduces the odds of the broadhead skidding on the bone’s surface. Along with knowing the skip angle of your broadhead, knowing where the bones are located and what their shape/profile is from differing angles is can help in your shot selection? – Ed [/bold]

      I shot a buck at 15 yards from high in a tree that seemed to have lung blood. Bright red/pinkish with bubbles … heard the deer crash … went back to the truck with all my gear and got my deer buggie to get the deer out …. went to where I heard him crash. He wasn’t there … good blood … never found him

      [bold] The skip angle of the broadhead we CHOSE to use becomes an important factor any time the angle of impact between the broadhead and the surface of a bone (any bone) is anything other than near perpendicular. The linear (along the long axis) curvature of the ribs gets greater the higher on the rib you go. Shooting from a downward angle onto the steeply curved ribs greatly increases the odds of the broadhead skidding on the rib. When shooting from an elevated position this, along with your broadhead’s skip angle, is something that needs to be considered in your shot selection. – Ed [/bold]

      … had a buddy lose a doe due to Rage broadheads … 15 yard quartering away shot … swears he hit the center of the ribs heading for the off side front leg … on trying to open deflected off of a rib and slide along the rib cage up to the front shoulder, it never entered the chest cavity … Never recovered the deer after a half mile tracking effort

      [bold] This is clearly a skip angle issue. I’ve tested NO mechanical broadhead that has shown a good skip angle. The Rage has rear-deploying blades, and this does show a better skip angle than any of the front-deploying mechanical broadheads I’ve tested. That said, the skip angle of the Rage is still not what I would consider more than marginal, at best. – Ed [/bold]

      Now I’m interested to hear what YOU think. Is openly discussing shots that wounded rather than killed, and things that might have prevented that outcome, a benefit for bowhunting, or is it something we bowhunters should try to hide and pretend never happens?

      Ed

    • Rogue
      Post count: 84

      I enjoy many things that are openly discussed. If not for these open discusions I believe that no one would question their equipment and figure that a certian ammount of wounding rates are normal. I am constantly amazed at the ammount of people shooting a 70lb compound that cannot achieve complete penetration on deer sized animals.

      Three years ago after reading some of the Ashby reports I started to tinker with heavier arrows. I was shooting an aluminun shaft that was not light to start with but by the time I was done adding weight up front I think those shafts finished at 680gr. I made a good shot on a quartering away cow elk that went bad. An unseen twig deflected that arrow to hit her in the ham. To my surprise she only made it 50 yards, the broadhead severed the femoral artery and fractured the femur.

      It is easy to tout a setup when shots are perfect, but since I rarely make perfect shots I am willing to explore all options to put an animal on the ground and in the feeezer.

    • Stephen Graf
      Moderator
      Post count: 2361

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: “Shoulder hits are rarely fatal”? Really? On deer sized game I generally aim ON the shoulder. (NOTE: I DID NOT SAY I AIM AT THE SHOULDER BONES). The mid-shoulder area is only meat, with underlying ribs. Aiming there reduces the hits ‘too far back’, and I can comfortable do so because I’ve tested my setup thoroughly and KNOW that, should my shot hit a bone in the shoulder, it is more than capable of penetrating ANY bone to be found there. – Ed

      I employed this strategy this year for exactly the reasons you mention. I have harvested 2 bucks that I shot through the shoulders. An additional advantage I experienced from this is that a deer shot through the shoulders doesn’t go far. The first went less than 40 yds stumbling all the way. The second dropped where I shot him and never got up.

      I was worried about the second deer, thinking I had hit him in the leg or back, but once I heard the gurgling, I knew it would be ok. It was early morning and I couldn’t keep my eye on the flight of the arrow… but it was true and went through the middle of the shoulder and out behind the off side shoulder. Abowyer Wapiti broadhead looked perfect upon retrieval. The arrow did penetrate through the deer, but did not pass through. Deer broke arrow when he fell.

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Steve Graf wrote: An additional advantage I experienced from this is that a deer shot through the shoulders doesn’t go far. The first went less than 40 yds stumbling all the way. The second dropped where I shot him and never got up.

      That exactly mirrors my own experiences. I’ve had several shoulder hit animals drop in their tracks, and those that didn’t were all very short recoveries, with a great number going down within sight. I must add that they all had exit wounds, though not all were pass throughs. The ‘double holes’ greatly aid in fast collapse of the lungs. There’s an old saying among the Africa Professional Hunters; “An animal lives between its shoulders”. That’s absolutely true.

      Ed

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: Hunting season is well underway and I’ve been watching a few forums for wounding/loss threads. By the comments posted it seems that many folks (perhaps most) feel that even mentioning wounding and loss of game is inappropriate; that it merely provides fuel for anti-hunters. The following two quotes are pretty typical of what appears to be a majority opinion.

      Discussions on the ways to lower the % ARE best done out of the limelight.

      I agree … may be used as fuel for the anti’s. Something we should avoid at all costs.

      I disagree. We all know that game is wounded and lost, and so do all the anti-hunters (and nothing we say – or don’t say – is going to alter any anti-hunter’s mindset anyway). It’s those ‘on the fence’ that might be influenced. I feel it is far better for bowhunters to be seen as trying to address the issue, doing all we can to minimize the wounding/loss rate than to be seen as trying to ‘cover up’ information about wounding and loss. To that end there’s no better situation than the examination of shots that fail, with the goal of trying to address things that could have been done that would have lessened the odds of the shot resulting in a wounding hit. Here are a few excerpts from some of the wounded and lost postings. I couldn’t help but add a few comments of my own, which I’ve placed in bold type and clearly marked.

      … approx 12-14 yards … he ducked and was moving back from the direction he came … hit him a bit high and a bit back (mid body back) … ran into the ravine with the arrow sticking out, at least eight inch penetration … 53# at my draw, cedar arrow with Zwickey 4 blade (bleeders)

      [bold] Maximizing your arrow’s penetration potential is always a good idea when bowhunting big game. There’s no such thing as a big game arrow that penetrates TOO MUCH! Something about this setup inhibited the arrow’s penetration. It could be the quality of arrow flight. A hit “a bit high and a bit back” might have impacted the back ribs, near the spine. If so, then the bone penetration quality and skip angle of the broadhead become penetration limiting factors, as does the broadhead’s Mechanical Advantage (MA). The animal’s movement also has a penetration reducing effect, which is another good reason for using an arrow with (what many seem to consider) “over-penetration” for a deer sized animal. It’s impossible to know exactly where this hit was placed, or the angle of the arrow in the deer, but more penetration MIGHT well have made a huge difference on this hit, and certainly would not have lessened the chance of recovery. – Ed [/bold]

      I shot a buck with a 160 Snuffer, little forward. As he took off I saw more arrow sticking out then I expected. However, looked to be at least 4″ (which would put the arrow in the front lung) … I tracked him through the cover, with plenty of blood … I lost all blood on the edge of the picked corn field. Searched on my hands and knees for 4 hours. NOTHING! Very disapointing!

      [bold] When ‘things go wrong’, a broadhead with a low MA always has an adverse effect on penetration. Having a double lung hit and an exit would certainly have helped. Bigger (cut area) does not always mean better!– Ed [/bold]

      My family used to own a meat packing house. You could not imagine what a buck can survive. Deer have been brought in with entire arrows inside, lots of gunshot scars from previous years, an unnumberable amount of broadheads inside deer over the years

      [bold] I constantly read that “not much penetration is needed for an arrow to be adequate for deer size game”. Sounds like more than a few folks are not ‘blowing through’ every deer they hit. Over-penetration leaves a lot fewer broadheads in game too! – Ed [/bold]

      Hit him a little too far forward… and in the shoulder and didn’t get very good penetration… finally lost the trail in the neighborhood of 300-400 yards from start… NOTHING.

      … hit him on the shoulder blade and failed to penetrate in the chest cavity.

      Heavy shoulder hit, little penetration, LOTS of blood … followed a very good blood trail over two and a half hours. Shoulder hits are rarely fatal. If your not in the vital organs he will not bleed to death.

      [bold] “Shoulder hits are rarely fatal”? Really? On deer sized game I generally aim ON the shoulder. (NOTE: I DID NOT SAY I AIM AT THE SHOULDER BONES). The mid-shoulder area is only meat, with underlying ribs. Aiming there reduces the hits ‘too far back’, and I can comfortable do so because I’ve tested my setup thoroughly and KNOW that, should my shot hit a bone in the shoulder, it is more than capable of penetrating ANY bone to be found there. The ability of the broadhead we CHOSE to use to penetrate bone can make the difference between getting through a shoulder bone, and when a ‘good bone-performance’ broadhead is used on an arrow with a mass above the heavy bone threshold penetrating through the shoulder bones of a deer, and into the thorax, becomes the likely outcome. I reiterate, maximizing your arrow’s penetration potential is ALWAYS a good idea when bowhunting big game. There’s no such thing as a big game arrow that penetrates TOO MUCH! – Ed [/bold]

      Unfortunately it is a part of our hunting that happens … The arrow once released is beyond our control. Since we are shooting a moveable and excitable target sometimes the best shot can result in the worst hit. What can we do to help cut down the occurances of wounds…..practice with our equipment so we can be the best we can be……only take high percentage shots at stationary and relaxed targets…..always be sure we are shooting in our comfort range, don’t say I only shoot 15 yards then blaze away at a buck at 30 just cause he was a monster.

      [bold] What? Not even a mention of maximizing the terminal performance of the arrow we CHOSE to use? Is the assumption that all arrow setups work equally well, on every type of hit? – Ed [/bold]

      I messed up on a great 130″ class 8ptr in NJ 2 years ago when I was 17 feet up and he was another 4 or 5 feet down hill but only 7 yards away … richoched off ribs, slid down the briscuit and into the ground. No blood, just some hair and fatty meat on arrow.

      [bold] No mention of the broadhead used, but this is clearly a skip angle issue. Using broadheads with good skip angles reduces the odds of the broadhead skidding on the bone’s surface. Along with knowing the skip angle of your broadhead, knowing where the bones are located and what their shape/profile is from differing angles is can help in your shot selection? – Ed [/bold]

      I shot a buck at 15 yards from high in a tree that seemed to have lung blood. Bright red/pinkish with bubbles … heard the deer crash … went back to the truck with all my gear and got my deer buggie to get the deer out …. went to where I heard him crash. He wasn’t there … good blood … never found him

      [bold] The skip angle of the broadhead we CHOSE to use becomes an important factor any time the angle of impact between the broadhead and the surface of a bone (any bone) is anything other than near perpendicular. The linear (along the long axis) curvature of the ribs gets greater the higher on the rib you go. Shooting from a downward angle onto the steeply curved ribs greatly increases the odds of the broadhead skidding on the rib. When shooting from an elevated position this, along with your broadhead’s skip angle, is something that needs to be considered in your shot selection. – Ed [/bold]

      … had a buddy lose a doe due to Rage broadheads … 15 yard quartering away shot … swears he hit the center of the ribs heading for the off side front leg … on trying to open deflected off of a rib and slide along the rib cage up to the front shoulder, it never entered the chest cavity … Never recovered the deer after a half mile tracking effort

      [bold] This is clearly a skip angle issue. I’ve tested NO mechanical broadhead that has shown a good skip angle. The Rage has rear-deploying blades, and this does show a better skip angle than any of the front-deploying mechanical broadheads I’ve tested. That said, the skip angle of the Rage is still not what I would consider more than marginal, at best. – Ed [/bold]

      Now I’m interested to hear what YOU think. Is openly discussing shots that wounded rather than killed, and things that might have prevented that outcome, a benefit for bowhunting, or is it something we bowhunters should try to hide and pretend never happens?

      Ed

      I seem to be having problems with my computer at this time. I have twice typed a lengthy response, and “lose it”. I’ll try again this evening.

      Ireland

    • David Petersen
      Member
      Post count: 2749

      Ed — you went to considerable effort to collect and post and respond to all this info. Thanks you sir. So far as openly discussing “what went wrong and why” — I see it as the only ethical choice. Otherwise we simply continue to wallow in willful ignorance. I don’t know whether to be proud or ashamed to say that the traditional community is the only branch of bowhunting that seems more interested in admitting our flaws and correcting them, than going gleefully along with a “stuff happens” attitude. Stuff does happen, of course, which is precisely why we are morally bound to make every possible preparation to minimize the harm and loss when it does. “There is no such thing as overkill.”

      This discussion reminds me of 20 years or so ago when the dominant feeling regards openly discussing all of hunting’s many flaws, we referred to as the “bunker mentality.” It went like, “All hunters have to stick together and support one another against the antis, even if we don’t necessarily agree.” Used to be we heard that constantly. But not much any more! That’s because a core of us, mostly writing for Bugle at the time and thanks to the forward-looking leadership of RMEF at the time (no more, sadly), started focusing on openly discussing what was/is wrong with hunting. I published “A Hunter’s Heart: Honest Essays on Blood Sport,” which was a collection of hunters discussing what’s wrong with hunting and how to fix it. Jim Posewitz wrote “Beyond Fair Chase”where he discussed the basic morality of hunting in very simple terms and made it available to hunter safety classes. Scott Stouder, in Bugle and Mule Deer magazines and a syndicated newspaper column, really raised hell with the bunker (sub)mentality. Ted Kerasote and others. And did we ever find a welcome audience among mainstream hunters. Soon most hunter safety courses had incorporated or expanded an ethical aspect to all classes. In short, by opening a critical discussion of hunting’s problems among hunters, hunters took that conversation away from the antis and hushed them up somewhat, at the same time raising the collective ethics of hunters. And throughout, traditional-values hunters were and remain in the lead.

      Now Ed Ashby and we are doing the same with the “technical ethics” aspects of bowhunting. My applause and gratitude are endless. dave

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      My feelings exactly, Dave. If we do not learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat them, ad infinitum. I am just dismayed by the number of post I’ve found that think we should never openly admit to having a shot fail.

      Ed

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      [bold] In my opinion, trying to ‘hide’ wounding and loss is not even a viable option. Here are a few (not all) of the bowhunting wound-loss studies that I could locate in just 10 minutes of searching the web. Note that some of the studies look at the effect use of compounds have on the rate – virtually none. The problem ain’t with the bow selection!

      Judging from the ‘shots/kill’ it looks like most folks can’t count on putting their arrow “in the right place” with any degree of regularity. If you can do that every time then it won’t ever make much difference what arrow setup you use; most any arrow setup will work.

      When the game can move faster than your arrows it doesn’t matter how good a shot you are; bad hits are going to happen. Always try for the best shot, every time, but set your arrow up for the best possible outcome on as many of the less-than-perfect hits that MIGHT result. [/bold]

      [bold] ARCHERY WOUNDING RATES AND SHOTS PER KILL [/bold]

      Bow-Hunting References

      1. Aho, R.W. 1984 “Deer Hunting Retrieval Rates.” Michigan Pittman-Robertson Report. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. 11pp.
      58% wounded

      2. Anonymous. 1970 “Chincoteague Narrative Report, 1965-1970” Refuge Manager”s United States Government Memorandum to Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 3pp.
      52% wounded, 15 shots per kill

      3. Boydston, G.A. and Gore, H.G. 1987 “Archery Wounding Loss in Texas.” Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas. 16pp.
      50% wounded, 21 shots per kill

      4. Cada, J.D., 1988 “Preliminary Archery Survey Report.” Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Helena, Montana. 7pp.
      51% wounded.

      5 & 6. Causey, M.K., Dennamer, J.E., Logan, J. and Chapman Jr., J.I., 1978
      “Bowhunting White-tailed Deer with Succinylcholine Chloride Treated Arrows.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 6(3): 142-145
      50% wounded in Alabama (without succinylcholine chloride).
      50% wounded in South Carolina (without succinylcholine chloride).

      7. Croft, R.L. 1963. “A Survey for Georgia Bowhunters.” Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish commissioners. 17:155-163
      44% wounded.

      8. Downing, R.L. 1971. “Comparison of Crippling Losses of White-tailed Deer Caused by Archery, Buckshot and Shotgun Slugs.” Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 25:77-82
      50% wounded

      9. Garland, L.E. 1972. “Bowhunting for Deer in Vermont: Some Characteristics of the Hunters, the Hunt, and the Harvest.” Vermont Fish and Game Department. Waterbury, Vermont. 19pp.
      63% wounded

      [bold] 10. Gladfelter, H.L. and Kienzler, J.M. 1983. “Effects of the Compound Bow on the Success and Crippling Rates in Iowa.” Proceedings of the Midwest Bowhunting Conference. Wisconsin Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Edited by Beattie, K.H. and Moss, B.A. pp215-219
      55% wounded [/bold]

      [bold] 11. Gladfelter, H.L., Kienzler, J.M. and Koehler, K.J. 1983. “Effects of Compound Bow Use on Hunter Success and Crippling Rates in Iowa.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 11(1):7-12.
      49% wounded [/bold]

      12. Hansen, L.P. and Olson, G.S. 1989. “Survey of Archery Hunters, 1987.” Missouri Department of Conservation. Columbia, Missouri. 17pp.
      52% wounded

      13. Hofacker, A. 1986. “On the Trail of Wounded Deer: The Philosophy of Waiting.” Deer and Deer Hunting 10(2):65-85, 104
      56% wounded

      14. Jackson, R.M. and Norton, R. 1982. “Wisconsin Bowhunter Study.” University of Wisconsin. Lacrosse, Wisconsin. 36pp.
      44% wounded.

      15. Langenau, Jr., E.E. and Aho, R.W. 1983. “Relative Impact of Firearms and Archery Hunting on Deer Populations.” Proceedings of the Midwest Bowhunting Conference. Wisconsin Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Edited by Beattie, K.H. and Moss, B.A. pp 97-121
      55% wounded, 13 shots per kill.

      16. Langenau, Jr., E.E. 1986 “Factor Associated with Hunter Retrieval of Deer Hit by Arrows and Shotguns Slugs.” Leisure Sciences 8(4):417-438
      61% wounded.

      17. McPhillips, K.B., Linder, R.L. and Wentz, W.A. 1985. “Nonreporting Success, and Wounding by South Dakota Deer Bowhunters–1981.” Wildlife Society Bulletin
      12(4)395-398
      48% wounded, 14 shots per kill.

      18. Moen, A.N. 1989. “Crippling Losses.” Deer and Deer Hunting 12(6):64-70.
      68% wounded.

      19. Stormer, F.A., Kirkpatrick, C.M. and Hoekstra, T.W. 1979, “Hunter-Inflicted Wounding of White-tailed Deer.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 7(1):10-16
      58% wounded.

      [Bold] Fractions rounded to nearest whole number:
      55% overall wounding rate from 19 reports (two cited by Causey et all);
      17 shots per kill, average. [/bold]

      Ed

    • BadShotDad
      Post count: 20

      Speaking from the other end of the learning curve, how else is one supposed to learn? You talk about what happened, you think about what happened vs. what you wanted to happen, and you learn from it.

      Thanks for bringing this topic up. I for one am certainly looking and learning!

    • David Petersen
      Member
      Post count: 2749

      BadShotDad — right on! You said it all in very few words.

      Ed — did/do you know Ann Causey? She was a Ph.D. professor of ethics at a southern university who is the One Single Person who started the entire “hunters fixing hunting” movement IMHO, and yet I failed to name her in my brief list, above. (Oldtimer’s or Happy hour disease, forgive me Ann). She was a nonhunter who on the second go-round married a hunter and combined her love and respect for him and his ethics with her academic studies and published a paper on hunting ethics, subsequently abbreviated in Bugle magazine, which started those of us who value and can handle painful/masochistic thinking and self-criticism to really thinking about ourselves and not only how we hunt, but why we hunt how we hunt. This was some 20 years ago. Then she just disappeared. Wherever you are, my endless thanks, Ann Causey!

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      David Petersen wrote: BadShotDad — right on! You said it all in very few words.

      Ed — did/do you know Ann Causey? She was a Ph.D. professor of ethics at a southern university who is the One Single Person who started the entire “hunters fixing hunting” movement IMHO, and yet I failed to name her in my brief list, above. (Oldtimer’s or Happy hour disease, forgive me Ann). She was a nonhunter who on the second go-round married a hunter and combined her love and respect for him and his ethics with her academic studies and published a paper on hunting ethics, subsequently abbreviated in Bugle magazine, which started those of us who value and can handle painful/masochistic thinking and self-criticism to really thinking about ourselves and not only how we hunt, but why we hunt how we hunt. This was some 20 years ago. Then she just disappeared. Wherever you are, my endless thanks, Ann Causey!

      I like that; “Hunters Fixing Hunting”. Don’t know the lady, but think I would like her very much!

      Ed

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Here’s another post I found. It’s accompanied by a photo of an average size buck. I’ve condensed and consolidated the post a bit but the words are a direct quote.

      this is obviously enough, however, I prefer an exit hole … shot this buck fifteen yards away … going up a slope … body position was close to what you might have with a straight down angle … only went forty yards … saw him stumble and drop … only pierced one lung. Maybe ten inches went in … week before I shot a larger buck … broadside … hit him behind the shoulder and above the elbow … As he ran off the arrow didn’t wiggle … maybe four inches went in … never found him … traveled one mile … followed the whole bloodtrail … never recovered the arrow or part of one … blood stopped … guess that the arrow slid down along a heavy rib … shooting a 62″ Martin Hatfield 55# … draw 28″… shafts are 2016s tipped with a 125gn Wensel Woodsman … shaft, minus the broadhead, is 31.25″.

      [bold] Then he does ask the right question: [/bold]

      Is there anything obvious to someone that my setup could be improved upon?

      [bold] So far no one has given him any suggestions. It’s on a web site that I don’t post on, but I’m waiting to see if he ever gets any suggestions.

      There’s obviously a problem with the penetration he’s getting from a 55# bow. What problems do YOU see with his setup and what suggestions would YOU make as to things he could do to improve his setup? [/bold]

      Ed

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: There’s obviously a problem with the penetration he’s getting from a 55# bow. What problems do YOU see with his setup and what suggestions would YOU make as to things he could do to improve his setup? [/bold]

      Ed

      Short and simple: tune it.

      If he’s hitting deer where he says he’s hitting them, there’s no reason he shouldn’t blow through them like a wet paper bag.

    • sorno
      Post count: 13

      As much as I find it personally distasteful to read ‘the ones that got away’ stories, I force myself to. Sometimes it’s bad decisions, sometimes lack of preparation, sometimes inadequate gear, etc. But in any case, I’d much rather learn from the mistakes made by someone else and read the suggestions on how to remedy the shortcomings rather than have to live through it myself…
      S.

    • 3blades
      Post count: 58

      Still being new to the art of hunting I find myself very mindful of a miss hit while hunting. I have had a few times had a deer broadside of me at 20yrs or so and been unable to loose an arrow. It just didn’t feel right, I don’t have time to recover and process or I just thought I would miss. It is a situation that I some times struggle with and all the negative what ifs. On the way home however I always second guess myself and wish I would have shot most times. I do hunt mostly all urban settings so the pressure of a good hit is always there. My question is do these ever go away and do many of you struggle like this? I have a hunch that many of the missed shots kinda develop from this on the fence decision to take the shot or not. 💡

    • Rogue
      Post count: 84

      J.Wesbrock wrote: [quote=Dr. Ed Ashby] There’s obviously a problem with the penetration he’s getting from a 55# bow. What problems do YOU see with his setup and what suggestions would YOU make as to things he could do to improve his setup? [/bold]

      Ed

      Short and simple: tune it.

      If he’s hitting deer where he says he’s hitting them, there’s no reason he shouldn’t blow through them like a wet paper bag.

      I agree with the above statement. Although I am more of a fan of 2 blades than 3.
      Atleast the poster was willing to ask what could be done to improve his setup.
      Another forum was posted a video of a immature deer being shot at 19 yards with a compound and expandables. Penetration was pathetic at best yet the thread starter was not willing to admit that his setup was somehow inadequate.

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Rogue wrote:
      I agree with the above statement. Although I am more of a fan of 2 blades than 3.
      Atleast the poster was willing to ask what could be done to improve his setup.
      Another forum was posted a video of a immature deer being shot at 19 yards with a compound and expandables. Penetration was pathetic at best yet the thread starter was not willing to admit that his setup was somehow inadequate.

      I shoot 2-blade heads as well, although I’ve put enough 3- and 4-blade heads through deer to know that penetration was never an issue, at least for me personally. My paternal grandfather hunted for decades with a 42# recurve, swagged aluminum arrows, and 125-grain 3-blade heads. He rarely ever left an arrow in a deer — in one side, out the other.

      I used to scratch my head at all these poor penetration stories on whitetails until a few years ago at the Compton Rendezvous. Ken Beck did a bareshaft tuning seminar where he spent an entire afternoon helping people tune their bows. Out of all the people I watched shoot bare shafts matching their chosen arrows that day, I can count on one hand the number that didn’t plane horribly, sometimes several feet at 20 yards.

      A year or two later at the same shoot I met a gentleman with an ACS-CX longbow — mid-60’s in poundage as I recall. He was shooting very heavy wood arrows, and hunted with narrow 2-blade heads (Grizzly or Stos, I don’t exactly recall). I asked him how he liked the bow, and his response was that he’d shot two whitetail does broadside and failed to get a pass through on either. Here he had more energy and heavier arrows than what I used to shoot completely through a bull moose, but he couldn’t get one through a whitetail doe? After we shot for a while I understood the cause of his problem. I’ve seen snakes crawl straighter than his arrows flew.

      In terms of North American big game, it doesn’t get much easier to penetrate than whitetail deer. The unfortunate fact is that too few bowhunters — both modern and traditional — properly tune their bows. And even more unfortunately, as a group we too often blame our equipment, when our own lack of proper preparation and execution is at fault.

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: Here’s another post I found. It’s accompanied by a photo of an average size buck. I’ve condensed and consolidated the post a bit but the words are a direct quote.

      this is obviously enough, however, I prefer an exit hole … shot this buck fifteen yards away … going up a slope … body position was close to what you might have with a straight down angle … only went forty yards … saw him stumble and drop … only pierced one lung. Maybe ten inches went in … week before I shot a larger buck … broadside … hit him behind the shoulder and above the elbow … As he ran off the arrow didn’t wiggle … maybe four inches went in … never found him … traveled one mile … followed the whole bloodtrail … never recovered the arrow or part of one … blood stopped … guess that the arrow slid down along a heavy rib … shooting a 62″ Martin Hatfield 55# … draw 28″… shafts are 2016s tipped with a 125gn Wensel Woodsman … shaft, minus the broadhead, is 31.25″.

      [bold] Then he does ask the right question: [/bold]

      Is there anything obvious to someone that my setup could be improved upon?

      [bold] So far no one has given him any suggestions. It’s on a web site that I don’t post on, but I’m waiting to see if he ever gets any suggestions.

      There’s obviously a problem with the penetration he’s getting from a 55# bow. What problems do YOU see with his setup and what suggestions would YOU make as to things he could do to improve his setup? [/bold]

      Ed

      Continued problems with my computer…sorry

      Ireland

    • DAbersold
      Post count: 111

      I’m going to get BASHED for this one! While I greatly appreciate Dr. Asby’s studies(I shoot for about 15-20% FOC), I feared this would eventually happen. We have with this post gone from high FOC arrows will help with penetration on heavy boned animals like elk/moose/Asian buff, to you need EFOC arrows with single edge broadheads or you will not be able to consistently kill deer. I totally agree with J.Wesbrock. A good old fashioned standard FOC arrow that is WELL TUNED, from a bow of adequate poundage, 45#-up, is more than enough for deer. I would have to argue that a poorly tuned high FOC arrow would not have fared much better in the above failures. We need to keep it real guys. Shot placement, well tuned equipment, and sharp broadheads, will go a lot further than just adding a ton of weight to the front of your arrow. Have at me boys!

    • M
      Post count: 107

      Why not use the most powerful bow you can shoot,even if you don’t need it for deer? Why not push yourself to train and build your strength to shoot a more powerful bow even if you don’t need it for deer? Why not use an arrow and BH that can pass through a cape buffalo even if you don’t need it for deer?

    • sapcut
      Post count: 159

      Dabersold,
      Isn’t all the Ashby reports, EFOC, single bevel, etc. MOSTLY if not entirely concerned with the shot that does not hit perfectly where intended? You know, the shots that we ALL make but never want to discuss. You know, the one’s that are not found in the “given” column that are associated with such cliches as “hit’em in the boiler room and you’ll be fine”.

      What is so hard to understand about this never ending discussion that is so incredibly informative IF you are willing to improve lethality and recovery?

      IT AIN’T ABOUT whether your 15% FOC arrow will actually make a deer dead or not. I repeat…IT AIN’T ABOUT whether your 15% FOC arrow will actually make a deer dead.

      It is about increasing the death and recovery rate when the shot placement you WERE NOT intending to make actually DOES occur. And when doing so, the factual evidence in the Ashby reports will greatly increase your chances of accomplishing the objective.

      If you DO choose to use the bow/arrow weaponry that is factually shown to NOT be the most lethal then say that, like you mean it.

      Then share your stories with us when the… “The arrow was going right where I wanted but the deer moved and I hit a big bone”… shot. Let us all know what happens so we can all learn.

      Richie

    • DAbersold
      Post count: 111

      I love it! If you read my post, you will find that I agree with, and practice, Dr. Ashby’s studies (15-20%FOC is pretty high when compared to what most are shooting these days). My point is, it has gotten to the point where some are now saying that if you DON’T use EFOC arrows, a single bevel broadhead, and an #60 bow, you should not be allowed in the deer woods and history has well proven that it is not the case.

      Richie – I’m not sure what you mean by this statement.
      If you DO choose to use the bow/arrow weaponry that is factually shown to NOT be the most lethal then say that, like you mean it.”
      Should I have said it like this. I’M SHOOTING MY #50 RECURVE WITH 500GR.,15-20%FOC ARROWS, AND DOUBLE BEVELED HEADS AT DEER DANG IT!
      Is that better? From a well tuned bow/arrow combination, that’s all you need. History has proven that many, many times. Shot placement and a well tuned arrow with a sharp broadhead will trump anything else every time.

      What about the shot that lands for far to the rear? There is just as much room for failure in that direction. In fact, there is a whole bunch more deer in that direction than to far forward. All the EFOC in the world will not help in a gut shot. (Correct me if I’m wrong Dr. Ashby)
      Bottom line, Yes, I believe that a higher FOC arrow, OUT OF A PROPERLY TUNED bow will help with penetration on a large bone hit. I can’t prove it myself, but Dr. Ashby’s studies can. However, there are SOOO many things that can go wrong with a shot after you release the arrow that I think I will just do my best to pick my shots, put the arrow where it is supposed to be, and hope the animal cooperates. We will never be able to eliminate all the variables. Bone penetration is just one.

    • sapcut
      Post count: 159

      “If you DO choose to use the bow/arrow weaponry that is factually shown to NOT be the most lethal then say that, like you mean it.”
      Should I have said it like this. I’M SHOOTING MY #50 RECURVE WITH 500GR.,15-20%FOC ARROWS, AND DOUBLE BEVELED HEADS AT DEER DANG IT!

      And..
      Dang it!..and I will disregard the bad shots where I know I will not get penetration. I will just chalk those up as “oh well maybe next time” shots.

      Then tell us what actually happens when you hit a bone.

      From a well tuned bow/arrow combination, that’s all you need. History has proven that many, many times. Shot placement and a well tuned arrow with a sharp broadhead will trump anything else every time.

      ok now I am screaming this one….CORRECT, IF YOU HIT THE DEER IN RIGHT SPOT. There are wrong spots as well.

      Another thing, why do so many people who are not interested in high FOC heavy arrows assume that you can’t have one that is tuned properly? Of course they can be. As a matter of FACT, the high FOC arrow is easier to tune than an average FOC arrow. That is the main reason it penetrates better.

      However, there are SOOO many things that can go wrong with a shot after you release the arrow that I think I will just do my best to pick my shots, put the arrow where it is supposed to be, and hope the animal cooperates.

      That is precisely why the Ashby reports are so valuable. To learn and do what we can to come out of the “notso” good situation with a recovered animal as much as possible.

      Any bow hunter can…. be proficient in the back yard with their bow just as good as the next one, use a shavin sharp broadhead, do their best to pick their shots, put the arrow where it is supposed to be and hope the animal cooperates…. with a less lethal arrow OR a more lethal heavy high FOC arrow. There is ZERO difference in the two except when it hits the bone you didn’t want to hit. Then its a huge difference.

      When the collision does occur I personally will be glad I’m driving the Land Cruiser rather than wishing I never bought that stupid Prius.

      But thats just me..Dang it!

    • DAbersold
      Post count: 111

      You are right. I, and everyone else not shooting the kind of equipment you shoot, should quit bow hunting. There that should satisfy you. This has been a hoot, but I’m out.

    • sapcut
      Post count: 159

      Did I say that? Naaa

      Make sure you tell us the bone collision stories. We all know what happens when the perfect shot is made.

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: Here’s another post I found. It’s accompanied by a photo of an average size buck. I’ve condensed and consolidated the post a bit but the words are a direct quote.

      this is obviously enough, however, I prefer an exit hole … shot this buck fifteen yards away … going up a slope … body position was close to what you might have with a straight down angle … only went forty yards … saw him stumble and drop … only pierced one lung. Maybe ten inches went in … week before I shot a larger buck … broadside … hit him behind the shoulder and above the elbow … As he ran off the arrow didn’t wiggle … maybe four inches went in … never found him … traveled one mile … followed the whole bloodtrail … never recovered the arrow or part of one … blood stopped … guess that the arrow slid down along a heavy rib … shooting a 62″ Martin Hatfield 55# … draw 28″… shafts are 2016s tipped with a 125gn Wensel Woodsman … shaft, minus the broadhead, is 31.25″.

      [bold] Then he does ask the right question: [/bold]

      Is there anything obvious to someone that my setup could be improved upon?

      [bold] So far no one has given him any suggestions. It’s on a web site that I don’t post on, but I’m waiting to see if he ever gets any suggestions.

      There’s obviously a problem with the penetration he’s getting from a 55# bow. What problems do YOU see with his setup and what suggestions would YOU make as to things he could do to improve his setup? [/bold]

      Ed

      After having several days of computer problems…The third time is hopefully the charm. Here goes…

      Problems with his set-up:
      1. According to the Easton Arrow Selection Chart, he should be shooting a 2219,2315, or a 2415 arrow. The 2016 arrow he is shooting is for a bow in the poundage range of 29-34 pounds. He can attempt to tune this set-up all day long but will never get good arrow flight. I personally would recommend he shoot the 2219 arrow if he stays with aluminum.
      2. Structural integrity of the arrow is probably OK, but he is getting severe flexing and bending of the 2016 arrow shaft in flight and even more so upon impact. He is probably using an aluminum adapter and insert which could lead to increased risk of bending and potential structural failure.
      3.Low FOC
      4.Low MA
      5.Low mass
      6. His arrow is possibly an inch too long

      Suggestions for to improve his setup:

      1.Chose a quality carbon arrow of correct spine for his bow. Use brass insert and steel adapter for good structural integrity.
      2. Tune, tune and tune again for best possible arrow flight
      3. Chose a broadhead with a high MA such as my personal favorites (Grizzly El Grande or Abowyer Brown Bear)
      4. Work to get FOC at 25% to 30% range
      5. Overall mass weight of at least 650 grains.
      6. Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect. If you are hunting from a tree stand, practice shooting from a tree stand. Don’t find our during the shot that that bulky coat “got in the way”. Practice with your actual hunting clothes, including gloves, hat, coat and face-net. Simulate actual hunting conditions during practice.
      7. Continue to shoot during the actual hunting season. I’m amazed at the guys who wound a deer in mid-Nov and haven’t picked up their bow (to practice) since early Oct.
      8. Take only high percentage shots
      9. Learn how to blood trail deer
      10. Read the Ashby research again

      Lets hear from some other guys. This is how we all learn.

      A special thanks to Dr. Ashby for his tireless efforts in providing quality research.

      Ireland

    • coyote220
      Post count: 50

      It appears to me that there are some Egos on this thread that have a “FOC” of 90% or greater!

      Very useful information, thanks to all who contributed. This is a topic that will never be discussed on the Outdoor Channel.

    • sapcut
      Post count: 159

      Ireland,
      Very good information. Thanks for the reminders.

      Richie

    • tom-wisconsin
      Post count: 239

      Good evaluation, Ireland. I have been taking your advice about practicing with all my hunting clothes on. Made a difference. Still looking to harvest a deer.

      Tom

    • BadShotDad
      Post count: 20

      The (sadly) funny thing is all the strange looks I get when I go to the range with my ‘full’ hunting setup!

      Great advice Ireland.

      Me too Tom. Maybe this year!

    • Patrick
      Member
      Post count: 1148

      coyote220 wrote: It appears to me that there are some Egos on this thread that have a “FOC” of 90% or greater!

      I’m relieved to know that you’re not talking about me, since I hadn’t posted yet 😆

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      BadShotDad wrote: The (sadly) funny thing is all the strange looks I get when I go to the range with my ‘full’ hunting setup!

      Great advice Ireland.

      Me too Tom. Maybe this year!

      Thanks for all your kind comments guys. Actually there is not an “origional” thought in my entire post. Ninety-nine percent of my suggestions are taken directy from the writings of Dr. Ashby.

    • Rogue
      Post count: 84

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: My feelings exactly, Dave. If we do not learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat them, ad infinitum. I am just dismayed by the number of post I’ve found that think we should never openly admit to having a shot fail.

      Ed

      I would like to think that I can learn from others mistakes as well as my own.

      Bill

    • tom-wisconsin
      Post count: 239

      Here is my arrow specs I have been working on for the whole summer. I am hunting tomorrow and I practiced tonight with my addition of 5 gr brass washer behind the bareshaft. I was a little stiff with spine but the addition of just the 5 gr washer made the arrow fly true with no deflection right or left. I think this will improve my penetration. I like fine tuning like this. I feel more confident. In the area I hunt I will not get a shot beyond 15 yards. It is very thick woods. The biggest clearing is 15 yards. I have a shoulder problem and my 40# bow is my limit this year. I feel I have maximized my set up for my circumstances. Thanks to every one on this sight for your wisdom.

      GT expeditions hunters 3555
      Spine 0.500
      Straightness 0.600 +/-
      30” cut to cut
      30.75 inches BOP
      7.4 gpi
      222 grains
      9 gr nock
      6.9 gr fletching
      100 gr brass inserts
      125 steel adapter
      Abowyer Brown Bear 175 gr
      brass washer 5 gr
      Balance pt 24.75 “
      FOC 30.48%
      645 gr total wt

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      Tom-Wisconsin wrote: Here is my arrow specs I have been working on for the whole summer. I am hunting tomorrow and I practiced tonight with my addition of 5 gr brass washer behind the bareshaft. I was a little stiff with spine but the addition of just the 5 gr washer made the arrow fly true with no deflection right or left. I think this will improve my penetration. I like fine tuning like this. I feel more confident. In the area I hunt I will not get a shot beyond 15 yards. It is very thick woods. The biggest clearing is 15 yards. I have a shoulder problem and my 40# bow is my limit this year. I feel I have maximized my set up for my circumstances. Thanks to every one on this sight for your wisdom.

      GT expeditions hunters 3555
      Spine 0.500
      Straightness 0.600 +/-
      30” cut to cut
      30.75 inches BOP
      7.4 gpi
      222 grains
      9 gr nock
      6.9 gr fletching
      100 gr brass inserts
      125 steel adapter
      Abowyer Brown Bear 175 gr
      brass washer 5 gr
      Balance pt 24.75 “
      FOC 30.48%
      645 gr total wt

      Looks like an outstanding set-up Tom!!! Good hunting!!
      Ireland

    • sagebrush
      Post count: 52

      Wow, 13 shots per kill, 21 shots per kill. Who are these guys? I hardly ever shoot more than once. I think they need to practice more. I also shoot heavier bows with heavy arrows and two blade heads exclusively. I once hit an elk right in front of the hip with a zwickey delta and a 700 grain arrow out a 65 lb. bow. The elk was severely quartering away when the arrow hit. It went through most of the stomach, up through the chest and came out alongside the neck. I watched it drop. Most of the time my arrow goes through elk and sometimes I don’t find the arrow, but I do find the elk. Sometimes I don’t make it out the other side but I’m always glad for the penetration. I wish I would have tried the single bevels a long time ago. Not just because of the increase in mechanical advantage but also because of the excellent steel that really holds an edge. I have also played around with carbons. They really fly good. I just love wood. Besides, I have hundreds of them made up. Gary

    • rayborbon
      Post count: 298

      I don’t think people should hide the fact that they failed to harvest an animal that was hit by a bow. However if they exhibit this with a consistent pattern then perhaps they should seek a mentorship or carefully examine and learn from any situation they have had. Some people are just not made for bowhunting and those people should have the sense to realize that if they are not willing to practice, learn the equipment and where and how to make a good shot, then track the game or otherwise finish the deal, then perhaps they should use a rifle.

      In fact I have lost one black bear myself. I learned a lot from that experience. Where did I hit it and why? What was the wind doing? What could I have done better? Stalk closer, wait for a better shot opportunity (patience and concentration), etc. What happened after the shot? Did I pay attention to where the animal traveled to? Did I pay attention to where the arrow went? When I reflect on this experience I believe that I should have waited for a better shot angle.

      On the makeup of the arrow – yes it might be a problem in the situation or it may not just as well. In each situation the hunter probably knows more about what happened than anyone else.

      Another thing which I believe a hunter is obligated to do when an animal is hit but not immediately recovered, is make an attempt to recover that animal for a day or two. Especially when they know there is a good chance the animal was hit well enough to die. Yes, a judgement call… What I am concerned with is people who shoot and wound an animal and then search for an hour or two and call it a day. I’m not posting this to form an attack on anyone…

    • rnorris
      Post count: 88

      Appropriate discussion? Heck yes it is. I am absolutely not a fan of the big tent theory, and the hiding of dirty laundry. We need to police ourselves through discussion and mentorship before the non hunting public votes on our issues for us!

      I hate to admit it, but I have learned many things about archery and woodsmanship through these internet discussions. Odd huh?

    • Treetopflier
      Post count: 146

      “What’s old is new again.” Been a while on this one, Morris, but I for one always admire folks who dig back through older “dead’ threads and revitalize them. For as it happens, I couldn’t agree with you more. Another name I’ve read for the “big tent theory” is “bunker mentality.” Like (as I interpret it) “Let’s all hunker down close together until the critics go away.” Don’t work for ostraches, and never worked for us. Thanks, ttf

    • Dan Jackowiak
      Post count: 106

      I got a question for someone, maybe the good Doc will reply?

      Ok two different setups. One is an arrow that weighs 650 grs with 25% foc moving at 170 fps with a single bevel head.

      The second is a 500 gr arrow with 19% foc moving at 260 fps with a single bevel head.

      My question is, does that extra 90 fps compensate any for the lack of 150 grs of arrow weight as far as penetration goes?

      thanks

    • David Petersen
      Member
      Post count: 2749

      2blade — The Doc is staying with a friend down in NM while recovering from his second knee replacement. The friend’s computer crashed (apparently Ed doesn’t have one with him) and that cost some down time. So first the host had to catch up with his own backlog, then Ed had nearly 300 emails to work through. In short, he doesn’t have all that much online time available right now and feels he needs to handle personal mail before going back “public” here. He WILL be back but I wanted to explain the long absence. So far as your question, a study of the Ashby research will clearly show that compared to overall arrow weight, speed means comparatively little. It’s the old energy vs. momentum argument that was long ago settled for most trad shooters who are dealing with slower bows. Even some of the wheelie community are starting to come around. To paraphrase Doc, speed stops the moment of impact and the lighter the arrow the faster it slows and stops. Think of a very fast dart and a relatively slow spear. So the short answer to your question — in my interpretation as a student, not an expert, is that the first setup will penetrate far better, particularly in the event of a heavy bone strike. Others here may differ or agree, and may be able to point you to the best place to start reading in the Ashby Library. dp

    • Dan Jackowiak
      Post count: 106

      Thanks David. Now that I think about it, it makes sense that it would be harder to slow down something that was heavier rather than lighter.

    • Fletcher
      Post count: 177

      Quote: shooting a 62″ Martin Hatfield 55# … draw 28″… shafts are 2016s tipped with a 125gn Wensel Woodsman … shaft, minus the broadhead, is 31.25″.

      Problems with his set-up:
      1. According to the Easton Arrow Selection Chart, he should be shooting a 2219,2315, or a 2415 arrow. The 2016 arrow he is shooting is for a bow in the poundage range of 29-34 pounds. He can attempt to tune this set-up all day long but will never get good arrow flight. I personally would recommend he shoot the 2219 arrow if he stays with aluminum.”

      The current Easton charts are WAY off for recurves and longbows and very different from the charts of the 70’s and 80’s when aluminum was king. I have no idea as to why Easton has changed their charts, but today they are confusing and worthless at best.

      A 2016 has an AMO spine of 59 lb, same today as 30 years ago. It will be weak for a 55 lb Hatfield,esp at 31.25″; a 2018 or 2117 would be better and would allow a litte extra point weight, a good thing. Shorter would help, too. He would need a brick on the front to get a 2219 to tune.

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      Fletcher wrote: Quote: shooting a 62″ Martin Hatfield 55# … draw 28″… shafts are 2016s tipped with a 125gn Wensel Woodsman … shaft, minus the broadhead, is 31.25″.

      Problems with his set-up:
      1. According to the Easton Arrow Selection Chart, he should be shooting a 2219,2315, or a 2415 arrow. The 2016 arrow he is shooting is for a bow in the poundage range of 29-34 pounds. He can attempt to tune this set-up all day long but will never get good arrow flight. I personally would recommend he shoot the 2219 arrow if he stays with aluminum.”

      The current Easton charts are WAY off for recurves and longbows and very different from the charts of the 70’s and 80’s when aluminum was king. I have no idea as to why Easton has changed their charts, but today they are confusing and worthless at best.

      A 2016 has an AMO spine of 59 lb, same today as 30 years ago. It will be weak for a 55 lb Hatfield,esp at 31.25″; a 2018 or 2117 would be better and would allow a litte extra point weight, a good thing. Shorter would help, too. He would need a brick on the front to get a 2219 to tune.

      “He would need a a brick on the front to get a 2219 to tune”.

      That is why in my post I suggested he choose a 200 grain Grizzly El Grande or Abowyer Brown Bear with a 100-125 adapter and 100 grain brass insert.

      Contact Easton and they will explain why they changed their charts. Years of testing and data along with what they saw arrows actually doing on super slow motion video resulted in the changes.

      Ireland

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      2blade wrote: I got a question for someone, maybe the good Doc will reply?

      Ok two different setups. One is an arrow that weighs 650 grs with 25% foc moving at 170 fps with a single bevel head.

      The second is a 500 gr arrow with 19% foc moving at 260 fps with a single bevel head.

      My question is, does that extra 90 fps compensate any for the lack of 150 grs of arrow weight as far as penetration goes?

      thanks

      Go to the Alaskan Bowhunting Supply web site. Read “Speed Kills”. They have three Ashby studies which will help answer your questions you have asked above.

      Ireland

    • MontanaFord
      Post count: 450

      I shoot a bow that, at 28″, is supposed to be 55#. I don’t know, I don’t draw 28″. When I first started shooting, I didn’t know it, but I was short-drawing, and not maximizing my form or my draw length. I would shoot with my bow arm bent. The arrows that tuned best for me at that time were 2018’s. My draw length then was 28 1/2″. Or, that’s what it was when we actually measured it. In the beginning, I shot only 125 gr. heads, field tips and broadheads. However, I had also found that I could make a tight-fitting 2016 work for me, too, at my length, with a 125 out front. I think my 2018’s were 30 1/2″, and my 2016’s were 29 or so. But I didn’t like the lower weight. But, they flew really good for me, so I shot them.

      After a few years, and lots of frustrating shooting and erratic patterning, I took a good, long, hard look at my form. I realized I was cheating myself on length. When I got my arm out there where it’s supposed to be, I draw 29 1/2″. This made me completely start over with shafting and arrow length, as well as tip weight. Now, I shoot 2117’s that are cut at 31 1/2″, and I put 145 grain field tips and 150-160 grain broadheads out front. This gives me a much nicer overall weight (roughly 585-590 gr), and allows me to optimize my draw length better. I see a much better pattern when I shoot, and much better accuracy at longer ranges.

      I guess my overall point is this. 2018’s do work for a bow in the 55# range, provided they aren’t too long, and have the right tip. They could be longer and have a lighter tip, or shorter and have a heavier tip. Just my 2 pennies.

      Michael.

    • Dan Jackowiak
      Post count: 106

      Ireland wrote:
      Go to the Alaskan Bowhunting Supply web site. Read “Speed Kills”. They have three Ashby studies which will help answer your questions you have asked above.

      Ireland

      Thanks Ireland, I looked all over for that article but am unable to find it. Any way, I suppose that even a 550gr arrow would out penetrate a 450 gr no matter what the speed?

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      2blade wrote: [quote=Ireland]
      Go to the Alaskan Bowhunting Supply web site. Read “Speed Kills”. They have three Ashby studies which will help answer your questions you have asked above.

      Ireland

      Thanks Ireland, I looked all over for that article but am unable to find it. Any way, I suppose that even a 550gr arrow would out penetrate a 450 gr no matter what the speed?

      I have sent you a PM…

      Ireland

    • sagebrush
      Post count: 52

      Another thing to remember is when you are tuning your bow to arrows you can build out the strike plate. I did this with some light spined arrows I made for lighter limbs. I liked the arrows but they wouldn’t fly good. I built out the plate and now they shoot fine. This can also be done to facilitate the shooting of light spined carbons. I think Dr. Ashby made mention of this. You can use lighter physical weight carbons to get a higher FOC. Gary

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Well, it’s taken a while but I’m finally where I can devote some time back on line, at least for a few days. If all goes well I’ll be traveling for a bit after 6 January, but will try to check in whenever there is an opportunity. For now I have to catch up on all the postings here.

      The down time has permitted me to do some more work on the 2008 testing information, and the Part 6 Update should be posted soon. How much penetration do you gain for every 1 percent increase in EFOC/Ultra-EFOC? If arrow FOC is increased how much can arrow weight be decreased without a loss in the amount of penetration? The 2008, Part 6 Update has what the Study data indicates.

      Ed

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: Well, it’s taken a while but I’m finally where I can devote some time back on line, at least for a few days. If all goes well I’ll be traveling for a bit after 6 January, but will try to check in whenever there is an opportunity. For now I have to catch up on all the postings here.

      The down time has permitted me to do some more work on the 2008 testing information, and the Part 6 Update should be posted soon. How much penetration do you gain for every 1 percent increase in EFOC/Ultra-EFOC? If arrow FOC is increased how much can arrow weight be decreased without a loss in the amount of penetration? The 2008, Part 6 Update has what the Study data indicates.

      Ed

      Dr. Ashby,

      Very much looking forward to seeing Part 6 posted…Thanks again for your hard work in providing all of us with great research we can use in the field.

      Merry Christmas,

      Ireland

    • Voodoo
      Post count: 50

      I think a lot of the problem with talking about wounding/loss, comes from embarrassment and shame, it takes dedication and practice to become proficient with a trad bow, and some just do not put in the time it takes to become so…..Here’s a simple test to prove my point for you fellas involved with archery clubs………Take any old target, put a 6″ paper plate on it, set it up for 20 yd shots…. and ask shooters to put 5 out of 5 arrows anywhere inside the confines of the plate…. the results may suprise you……. and although I think very highly of Doc. Ashby’s studies and what they have done for bowhunters everywhere……. you can’t kill what you can’t hit..

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Voodoo wrote: ……. you can’t kill what you can’t hit..

      Absolutely correct, but being the most accurate shooter on a stationary target also does not equate to being a good shot on game. Among those bowhunters I guided in Africa some of the worst shooting on game was done by those who shot the most accurately on targets. Of course some of that has to do with the fact that, unlike a target butt, animals can move before the arrow arrives but much more has to do with the hunter’s mindset and hunting skills, abilities and experience. Knowing one’s limitations and taking shots only within the hunter’s ‘zone’ and knowing how to time the shot; knowing when it’s time to shoot; are huge factors in a hunters success on game.

      I sometimes hear bowhunters who claim to only take shoots where they are CERTAIN that they will get a near perfect hit … but I’ve never personally seen a single one do so in action.

      Proficiency is important, but hunting skills and use of equipment that helps compensate when the shot is less than perfect count more than the ability to stack one arrow on top of the other when standing at a target. Many of the so called ‘primitive hunters’ I’ve seen in action are more than proof of that, as was the case in the research conducted by anthropologist (Lee, et al, 1979) among the Ja/wasi and !Xo bushman tribes and the Hadza hunters of Tanzania (see The Art of Tracking: the Origin of Science, by Louis Lienbenberg). When tested, they found that shooting accuracy did not equate with being among the most consistently successful hunters. In fact the very best, most consistently successful of the hunters proved to be among the least accurate when shooting at a target! When these, arguably most successful and skilled of all hunters were asked to list what skills that they considered most important in order for a hunter to be successful, shooting skill did not apper a single time among the answers given by any of those questioned. Every skill they listed revolved around mental abilities. The ‘hunting skill’ they listed as most important? “Cleverness”; the ability to outsmart the animal.

      Ed

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: [quote=Voodoo]……. you can’t kill what you can’t hit..

      I sometimes hear bowhunters who claim to only take shoots where they are CERTAIN that they will get a near perfect hit … but I’ve never personally seen a single one do so in action.

      Ed

      I don’t doubt what you’re saying, but I think it’s an unfortunate and sad reality that too many people take a “poke and hope” mentality to shooting game. I was raised better than that. As a kid, if I would have ever came back to the cabin and said that I did such a thing, my grandfather would have taken away my bow and probably wrapped me upside the head…and I’d have had it coming.

      There’s a huge difference between making a bad shot and taking one — the first is excusable, the second is not. Maybe that’s why my hunting partners, both back then and today, rarely, if ever, have the problems killing deer that I read about on the internet — proper judgment. Instead of expecting our equipment to bail us out of stupid decisions, maybe we should stop making those decisions in the first place.

    • Voodoo
      Post count: 50

      Doc, I understand what your saying, but we are far from natives in the jungle where they rely on their hunting skills to survive, we have chosen to survive on a different road, that road consists of different standards, as we all have jobs and/or businesses that we rely on to put food on the table, and in choosing that method of survival our skills have shifted from surviving in one jungle to surviving a completly different one where the blood that is shed is the color green, I really wish that more would or could put more time into perfecting their woodsmanship skills,but I’m afraid that the being the woodsman of old is out of most archers grasp these days, as most are pulled in many different directions as modern hunters and providers…….and to make up for that loss of skills, we have come to rely on our equipment more, and that seems to be an accepted practice from from the masses of today, all I’m saying is that in accepting this modern form of “primitive” archery, we need to hone the skills that have become our standard method……..but one thing I do not understand is… How can a person not proficient shooting an inatimate(sp) object be ok shooting a live, breathing, sometimes moving animal at the same distance?

    • tom-wisconsin
      Post count: 239

      I think that among people who hunt in a primitive culture they assume everyone in their group are excellent shots but also excellent trackers. We modern men are primitive when it comes to tracking compared to those experts. I wonder that when hunting as a group they continue to shoot multiple arrows from different members to continue to wound the animal until a kill shot happens or they bleed from multiple wounds. A group hunt of a primitive culture is a completely different ball game. Everyone would share in the meat. Their ability to track a wounded animal was probably very great and they would hunt a large animal for days if necessary to finally bring it down. At least that is my understanding. Please feel free to correct me about these impressions.

      I feel we are bound to only shoot within are abilities to get in the kill zone so we can bring it down quickly. We also need patience and judgement and wisdom to not shoot unless we feel very confident. The reason I hunt is to connect with nature. If I do not get an animal that is ok. If some people give in to the need to get an animal they may not use good judgement when taking a shot. We all need to emphasize this to others. Hunting should not be about competition but about experience. IMHO

      Tom

    • sapcut
      Post count: 159

      Here is the book mentioned. Holy pricey book Batman.

      http://www.amazon.com/Art-Tracking-Origin-Science/dp/0864861311

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      sapcut wrote: Here is the book mentioned. Holy pricey book Batman.

      http://www.amazon.com/Art-Tracking-Origin-Science/dp/0864861311

      Holy b– s—, Batman! I think they were about $12 or $15 when I bought my copy!

      Ed

      p.s. More I need to answer above, but it’s after midnight. Later.

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      J.Wesbrock wrote: … it’s an unfortunate and sad reality that too many people take a “poke and hope” mentality to shooting game. … There’s a huge difference between making a bad shot and taking one — the first is excusable, the second is not. … Instead of expecting our equipment to bail us out of stupid decisions, maybe we should stop making those decisions in the first place.

      I couldn’t agree more with you about folks taking a “poke and hope” shot. That results from desperation to ‘make a kill’. We no longer hunt for survival, and we have no justification, EVER, for taking a ‘desperation shot’ at unwounded game. But, as you say, no matter how hard one tries bad shots do sometimes happen, and our decision making is not the cause of these. It is on the unavoidable bad shot where the arrow we chose to use can often make a difference.

      Voodoo wrote: … I really wish that more would or could put more time into perfecting their woodsmanship skills, but I’m afraid that the being the woodsman of old is out of most archers grasp these days … to make up for that loss of skills, we have come to rely on our equipment more … all I’m saying is that in accepting this modern form of “primitive” archery, we need to hone the skills that have become our standard method

      I wish more bowhunters would devote a bit of the time they currently spend at target practice to development of basic hunting skills. For most, their shooting skill FAR exceeds their hunting/tracking/stalking/bushcraft skills. When one can get close to game it does not require any great degree of shooting skill to comfortably and consistently make killing shots. Basic hunting/tracking/stalking/bushcraft skills are something you’ll never hear mentioned on the Outdoor Channel. There, a new ‘wonder product’ is all required to make you a successful hunter.

      The development of pretty fair woodsman skill is not as for out of the reach of the average person as one would think. The problem is that most folks don’t (or won’t … and I find it hard to accept “can’t”) devote the effort to learn even the basic skills. I watched a ‘city’ LADY (yes, Cher Lacey) with absolutely NO prior bowhunting skills or experience develop into a pretty darned good tracker (and I don’t mean following a blood trail, I mean following spoor of unwounded animals), and an OUTSTANDING STALKER in a period of 2 years. She developed the skills to scout areas by following the tracks of an animal to see where it traveled and determine why it was going where it did (without getting lost), to stalk animals into near handshaking range, and to take them cleanly at a matter of feet, not yards. Along with this she learned all the basic survival skills, and even became comfortable hunting and camping ALONE in the outback in a rough bush camp (no tents, campers cook stoves, etcetera). Don’t get me wrong. She can’t track like a bushman, but she can track better than most men I’ve seen who’ve hunted for years and years. It is “doable” for most anyone, but requires one to make the effort.

      Voodoo wrote: … but one thing I do not understand is… How can a person not proficient shooting an inatimate(sp) object be ok shooting a live, breathing, sometimes moving animal at the same distance?

      Conversely, why do so many folks who are excellent target shots ‘muff’ easy shots with a frequency and regularity that I find astonishing, even at ranges that are well within the distance at which they can stack their arrows into a target so closely that they are virtually touching each other?

      As they gain more and more experience shooting at animals most hunters become more proficient at making a killing shot on game. However, there definitely appears to be other factors at play when it comes to consistently making the shot on an animal. I feel certain that there is, without question, a factor in some folks that make them better shots, when it matters the most. Rather than becoming nervous or excited when taking a shot at game they become more focused. Everything seems to slow down and all save the hunter and the hunted fade from the mind’s foreground. For some hunters a primeval instinct seems to kick into gear. Missing the shot no longer becomes an option; deep down they KNOW they will make the shot; they KNOW they will kill. Lacking a better term, I call it “killer instinct”. These folks hold their excitement until after the kill. I think most who have hunted for years have met a least one or more of these folks. Often they exhibit no more than average shooting skill but are consistently successful hunters; ones who rarely miss and rarely muff an easy shot.

      I cannot stand before a target very long while maintaining the level of concentration that I have when taking a shot at game. When working on a ‘target’ (which is usually stump shooting, or roving) I don’t even practice for a ‘group’. If fact, except when doing arrow tuning or practicing ‘shooting the wand’ at very long ranges, I rarely use a ‘target’, preferring to simply pick a random spot to ‘aim’ for. I do this practice in ‘groups of one’, changing something between every shot. It might be the position of my feet, the cant of my bow, the distance or angle of the shot, the speed of my draw and release, how long I hold at full draw before release or some other shot feature. On each shot I make a judgment as to whether the shot was ‘close enough to kill’ (well within the size of the kill zone on a big game animal) or not. If the shot is not what I consider ‘close enough to kill’ I don’t immediately repeat it. I’ll wait until later before trying that same shot again. There are few second chances to make an identical shot at an animal. When practicing I do, frequently, take shots that are well beyond my comfort zone; something I will not do with game.

      In shooting game I try to keep all shots within my ‘kill zone’. That zone [Bold]DOES NOT[/Bold] extend to as great a distance as where I can keep all arrows ‘close enough to kill’ WHEN REPEATEDLY SHOOTING ARROWS FROM THE SAME DISTANCE AND POSITION. My hunting shot kill zone encompasses that zone of ranges at which, when practicing as described above, I rarely make a shot that falls outside of ‘close enough to kill’, regardless of how and from what shooting position I have to take the shot. (I’m basically a stalker, and few of my shots allow me to strike a ‘target stance’.)

      Using my ‘kill zone’ as my guide I avoid taking shots outside that distance. When one confines their hunting shots to within their ‘kill zone’ they make a very high percentage of their shots. That, in turn, develops a level of confidence in one’s ability to make the shot when it matters. I know that I’m not surprised when I miss at a target, but I’m highly surprised when I fail to make a shot on a game animal.

      Tom-Wisconsin wrote: I think that among people who hunt in a primitive culture they assume everyone in their group are excellent shots but also excellent trackers. We modern men are primitive when it comes to tracking compared to those experts. I wonder that when hunting as a group they continue to shoot multiple arrows from different members to continue to wound the animal until a kill shot happens or they bleed from multiple wounds. A group hunt of a primitive culture is a completely different ball game. Everyone would share in the meat. Their ability to track a wounded animal was probably very great and they would hunt a large animal for days if necessary to finally bring it down. At least that is my understanding. Please feel free to correct me about these impressions. Tom

      Tom, not all primitive cultures use the ‘group hunt’ method. The Bushmen do, and they shoot as a group. Despite that, Lee, et al, found that, among young hunters, age 15 to 38, 70% of the kills were made by just 17% of the hunters. This is the same group of hunters among which the ‘shooting accuracy’ testing was conducted, with the 17% group of ‘most successful hunters’ showing the poorest degree of target accuracy. Perhaps this reflects that “killer instinct” among some hunters. The researchers speculated that these ‘most successful hunters’ developed superior hunting skills BECAUSE they were the poorer shots. Their poor shooting ability meant they needed superior hunting ability to get animals within their effective range.

      The natives in PNG tend to hunt in a group of three, but solo hunters are not at all uncommon. Their main reason for hunting in groups of three appears to be to make carrying the animal back an easier chore; two carry while one rest, rotating the task at regular intervals. When hunting as a group only one person does the final stalk, and shoots alone. Unlike the Bushmen, who track up their game, the PNG natives tend to hunt the open plains by spot-and-stalk, and they hunt the denser areas by ambush, often from elevated platforms in trees.

      Tom-Wisconsin wrote: I feel we are bound to only shoot within are abilities to get in the kill zone so we can bring it down quickly. We also need patience and judgement and wisdom to not shoot unless we feel very confident. The reason I hunt is to connect with nature. If I do not get an animal that is ok. If some people give in to the need to get an animal they may not use good judgement when taking a shot. We all need to emphasize this to others. Hunting should not be about competition but about experience. IMHO Tom

      It can’t be said any better Tom.

      Ed

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: [quote=J.Wesbrock] … it’s an unfortunate and sad reality that too many people take a “poke and hope” mentality to shooting game. … There’s a huge difference between making a bad shot and taking one — the first is excusable, the second is not. … Instead of expecting our equipment to bail us out of stupid decisions, maybe we should stop making those decisions in the first place.

      I couldn’t agree more with you about folks taking a “poke and hope” shot. That results from desperation to ‘make a kill’. We no longer hunt for survival, and we have no justification, EVER, for taking a ‘desperation shot’ at unwounded game. But, as you say, no matter how hard one tries bad shots do sometimes happen, and our decision making is not the cause of these. It is on the unavoidable bad shot where the arrow we chose to use can often make a difference.

      I agree that sometimes, despite our best preparation and intentions, things just happen. But when you stated…

      I sometimes hear bowhunters who claim to only take shoots where they are CERTAIN that they will get a near perfect hit … but I’ve never personally seen a single one do so in action.

      …that tells me the problem is not equipment based so much as people exercising poor judgment in their shot selection. That’s the difference between an unavoidable bad shot (making a bad shot) and a bad result brought about by a stupid decision (taking a bad shot). This brings me bad to speculating as to why my hunting partners, both back then and today, rarely, if ever, have the problems killing deer that I read about on the internet.

      If we’re going to discuss wounding losses and how to avoid them, should we not start by examining our own conduct afield? If we turn a blind eye to people taking shots they are less than certain of making, or intentionally shooting deer through the pelvis, shoulder blades, or neck, do we really have a leg to stand on when we talk about trying to reduce game losses? And when people do take these shots, get lucky and kill their animal, should we really pat them on the back and tout their results as a “success story?” I keep thinking back to when I was a kid and started bowhunting with my grandfather. If I’d have ever dragged a deer back to the cabin and bragged about shooting it up the rear end, my grandfather would have buried his boot in mine…not shook my hand and said congrats.

    • sapcut
      Post count: 159

      We can talk and hash out solutions all day, at our leisure, for people who have intentionally decided to make notsogood shot decisions. We can also do the same for people who decide to not drive a 4WD truck when hunting. These are decisions based on things you have complete control in a unlimited amount of time.

      The discussion about being prepared with your hunting equipment is about being prepared for what we CAN’T control. Things happen while hunting after we release arrows. There is a span of time that occurs between the release of the string until the arrow stops…somewhere.
      During that time period we have ZERO control of the situation. We just hide and watch. Also, during that span of time is when we: 1. will be glad that the arrow traveled the intended route, got the penetration desired with a recovered animal as a result or, 2. Wish we already made better preparations for the unintended travel route.

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      sapcut wrote: The discussion about being prepared with your hunting equipment is about being prepared for what we CAN’T control.

      Richie,

      I would be inclined to agree if so many of these discussions on various traditional bowhunting forums didn’t involve “success stories” of people intentionally shooting at animals that are whirling or facing head-on, or trying to punch through shoulder blades or other heavy bone structure. If a person wants to do those things, I suppose that’s his/her right. But does promoting it, either actively or passively, really do us any favors?

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      I sometimes hear bowhunters who claim to only take shoots where they are CERTAIN that they will get a near perfect hit … but I’ve never personally seen a single one do so in action.

      Jason, I could and should have worded that statement better, but you are misinterpreting the meaning. I don’t care how good a shot one is, or how hard one tries, no one – NO ONE – can be CERTAIN that their shot will end up as a near perfect hit. It simply is not possible. There are too many things over which the hunter has no control that can go wrong. That doesn’t not mean one should not always TRY to make a perfect shot, but it is unrealistic to expect that every shot is going to end up perfectly placed, just because we ‘feel certain’ of the shot; and it would be dishonest to claim it possible.

      Effective shots and shot placement will always be a subject of dispute among hunters. Take that hip shot you mention. It was one of Fred Bear’s favorite shots. Fred claimed it was faster and a more certain killing shot than was one into the thorax. Other than during the Natal Study, where we were instructed to shoot each animal by taking whatever shot angle was presented (because lethality of various shot placements was one of the things being investigated, and we were backed with rifles, if needed), the hip shot is not one I’ve ever intentionally tried for, but it is one I have ended up with a few times. I must say I have been impressed with the rapidity of the kill on each of those unintentional hip hits. The original Natal Study has an interesting section on the success rate by shot angle for the bowhunted animals in the Study.

      https://www.tradbow.com/members/243.cfm

      Just as for all other shot angles there were conditions which affected the lethality of the hip hit. These included (1) the degree of penetration obtained, (2) whether the hit was medial or lateral to the femur or, (3) if the femur was hit whether or not the arrow was capable of penetrating/fracturing the femur and carrying on to reach the femoral and/or iliac arteries.

      I’ve found that many bowhunters who hunt only deer, and especially if they use arrows having a lesser penetration potential, tend to concentrate their shot angles from either broadside or quartering from the rear. When their ‘ideal shot’ is accurately placed the impact will be well back of the shoulder’s center of mass. With such an arrow setup, and when shooting animals structured such as deer are, this is the appropriate approach to take. The thing I don’t like about this approach is that, when shots go wrong, it frequently results in hits that are too far back – a gut hit. Such a shot placement can/should not be used for many other species of large game; notably all members of the (true) antelope family where the vital organs of the thorax are located between the shoulders, and do not extend reward of the shoulder.

      On all species of big game I prefer to aim low ‘on the shoulder’. That DOES NOT MEAN ‘ON THE SCAPULA’. The low placed, center shoulder shot hits only skin, meat and connective tissues prior to reaching the level of the ribs. From broadside, even with a deer, aiming for a low center shoulder shot places the arrow near the lung’s center of mass, giving more room for error and reducing the likelihood of hitting too far back. The down side is that such an aiming point is closer to the shoulder bones. Should those bones be hit one needs to be using an arrow capable of reliably penetrating the bones and carrying on too traverse the thorax. The factors in design of a hunting arrow that affect the arrows ability to relaibly acomplish this task is what I’ve devoted a quarter cnetury of testing, and a few hundred thousand dollars, into defining. I’m not saying that everyone has to use such an arrow. I admire the ‘primitive’ bowhunters far too much for that. What I will say is that each of the defined factors one incorporates into the setup of their hunting arrow will improve the arrow’s terminal effectiveness in tissues.

      If we turn a blind eye to people taking shots they are less than certain of making, or intentionally shooting deer through the pelvis, shoulder blades, or neck, do we really have a leg to stand on when we talk about trying to reduce game losses?

      Regardless of who they are, EVERY shot a bowhunter takes at a game animal is one they are less than certain of making. There is the potential for things to go awry on each and every shot. That’s why it is advantageous to use an arrow setup that gives the highest likelihood of yielding a successful hit on the greatest number of the potential hits that MIGHT occur. I think that there are not many bowhunters who intentionally shoot for the neck, pelvis or scapula, but there certainly is one heck of a lot of folks who end up hitting there! Is it a lack of shooting skill; accuracy? In most all of the instances I’ve personally seen it wasn’t. It was generally a lack of hunting skills, not shooting skills.

      And when people do take these shots, get lucky and kill their animal, should we really pat them on the back and tout their results as a “success story?”

      What about when one’s well intended shot ends up unintentionally hitting a hip, neck vertebra, spine or scapula, but because he’s chosen to use an arrow setup that will, with an extremely high degree of probability, work, and he makes a clean, humane kill? When that setup performs the ‘fail safe’ function it was designed to do should we not herald as a success story the recovery of what would otherwise be likely to end up as a wounded or lost animal?

      I fully concur that we need to stress the personal ethics of only taking shots we feel are within both the capability of ourselves and the equipment we choose to use, but regardless of how hard any of us try there will always be less than perfect hits on game. Where is the downside to shooting the arrow most likely give a successful outcome on the greatest number of hits THAT MIGHT occur? Should we not be taking every step we can to reduce the wound/loss rate, not just concentrating on only one aspect? Considering that even the best, most skillful, most well intentioned and ethical of hunters make bad hits why not do all we can to convert as many of those bad hits into the quickest, cleanest and most humane kill possible?

      Ed

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Jason, I could and should have worded that statement better, but you are misinterpreting the meaning.

      In one of your updates, you made mention that in your experience as a hunter and guide, “perfect shots are as rare as feathers on a frog.” The only thing I can say is that my photo album is full of frogs that needed a good plucking,and there’s a reason for that. 😉

      Effective shots and shot placement will always be a subject of dispute among hunters. Take that hip shot you mention. It was one of Fred Bear’s favorite shots. Fred claimed it was faster and a more certain killing shot than was one into the thorax.

      Yes, Fred Bear is credited with coining the phrase “Texas heart shot.” Howard Hill killed an elk at 185 yards too. Hunting ethics with regard to shot selection has changed (rather, improved) a lot since that time. There was an excellent article in TBM not long ago about that very subject. Needless to say, I don’t think it would be a good thing to go back to the days of “if the arrow isn’t flying, the animal isn’t dying.”

      Regardless of who they are, EVERY shot a bowhunter takes at a game animal is one they are less than certain of making.

      I suppose we can agree to disagree, but if I ever feel less than certain of making a good hit, I simply don’t drop the string. I expect do less from the people with whom I hunt, and they from me — goes back to that “feathers on a frog” thing.

      What about when one’s well intended shot ends up unintentionally hitting a hip, neck vertebra, spine or scapula, but because he’s chosen to use an arrow setup that will, with an extremely high degree of probability, work, and he makes a clean, humane kill? When that setup performs the ‘fail safe’ function it was designed to do should we not herald as a success story the recovery of what would otherwise be likely to end up as a wounded or lost animal?

      I’ll again refer back to the difference between making a bad shot and taking one. Discussing the lucky positive outcome in the former is one thing; giving people a pat on the back for the latter, in my personal opinion, is not, and breeds more of the same.

      There’s a certain comfort in blaming our equipment. As a general rule, people don’t like having their judgment questioned. It’s easier to tell ourselves that a bad result was the fault of our equipment, instead of taking a good hard look at how we could have avoided the “unavoidable.” I get that. I see it at work every day, and I see it a lot in bowhunting.

      What I’m saying is this: if we’re going to have an appropriate discussion about reducing wounding losses, we should stop accepting behavior that needlessly lends itself to those situations (taking bad shots) and stop simply blaming our equipment for the rest.

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      [quote=Dr. Ed Ashby]

      Where is the downside to shooting the arrow most likely give a successful outcome on the greatest number of hits THAT MIGHT occur? Should we not be taking every step we can to reduce the wound/loss rate, not just concentrating on only one aspect? Considering that even the best, most skillful, most well intentioned and ethical of hunters make bad hits why not do all we can to convert as many of those bad hits into the quickest, cleanest and most humane kill possible?

      I concur that no one should take a shot at unwounded game unless they FEEL certain that the shot will be well placed, but FEELING CERTAIN of the shot does not equate to BEING CERTAIN that the shot will be well placed. Things happen; things beyond the control of the hunter. I have met bowhunters who claim they have never made a bad hit, but I’ve never guided or hunted with one who’s never made a bad hit.

      One’s personal idea of what constitutes a well placed shot may differ from that of others. What is well placed for one setup may well be poorly placed with another. It’s like the difference between a well placed shot when using a .22 long rifle’s little 40 grain bullet and being well placed when using a .375 H&H with a 300 grain solid. One will smash shoulders or hips and still rake an elephant end to end on a quartering shot and the other will only penetrate an elephant when placed in the thin skin under the front leg. And, yes, elephant have been killed with both, but there’s a huge difference between the two cartridges when it comes to what constitutes a well placed hit.

      Ed

    • sapcut
      Post count: 159

      What I’m saying is this: if we’re going to have an appropriate discussion about reducing wounding losses, we should stop accepting behavior that needlessly lends itself to those situations (taking bad shots) and stop simply blaming our equipment for the rest.

      Ok…Everyong please stop taking bad shots. It will no longer be accepted.

      Now that is out of the way and all hunters are no longer needlessly lending themselves to bad shot situations.

      Hypothetically, now the hunting public is very ethical and responsible (for a lack of a better way to describe them.)

      But for some reason arrows STILL continue to hit animals in spots that are unintended. That is and always will be fact. What do we do now?

      I know…what about make the preparations that we know will work BEFORE the unintended shot takes place? After all, what would be a reason not to?

    • JRW
      Member
      Post count: 3

      Ed,

      J.Wesbrock here.

      I’ll defer on the rifle analogies, since I’m no firearms expert. Although, I’d be hard pressed to imagine two bowhunting setups for big game that differ as greatly as a 22LR and a 375 H&H. Doesn’t the latter produce over a hundred times more energy than the former?

      Anyway, back to bowhunting. I agree that examining ways to reduce wounding losses is a good thing. But if we go around telling people that with such-n-such setup it’s perfectly OK to try shooting big game up the butt or through the shoulder blades, I think we’ve pretty much lost our credibility on the subject.

    • MontanaFord
      Post count: 450

      I don’t believe that Ed, sapcut or anybody else is saying that it’s perfectly OK to try shooting big game up the butt or through the shoulder blades. What they are saying, I believe, is that it is better to be “over-arrowed” for the shot that does hit these areas than to be “under-arrowed” for the same shot. Basically, would you rather face a charging grizzly or brown bear with a .22LR, or the aforementioned 375 H&H? I’ll take the 375 any day, because it’s going to give me much better penetration than the .22. Sure, nobody wants to face a charging ANYTHING (at least not the sane people that I know), but when you find yourself in that situation, why not have the extra “oomph” in your corner? That’s where the high FOC and internal/external footed arrows come in. More “oomph” equals a better outcome in the end, for when things don’t go as planned.

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      MontanaFord wrote: I don’t believe that Ed, sapcut or anybody else is saying that it’s perfectly OK to try shooting big game up the butt or through the shoulder blades.

      My purpose with this is not to call any individuals to the carpet, which is why I’ve refrained from reposting specific examples. But I’ve seen numerous instances where folks bragged about taking those very shots, many complete with photos. It actually got so bad on TradGang that they had to delete numerous threads and post a sticky message telling people that such things would not be tolerated.

      MontanaFord wrote:
      That’s where the high FOC and internal/external footed arrows come in. More “oomph” equals a better outcome in the end, for when things don’t go as planned.

      I suppose that depends on what you hit when things don’t go exactly as planned, which is another topic where different people have different and equally valid points…and no one ever seems to change each other’s minds. That’s why I don’t get into those discussions. 😉

    • rnorris
      Post count: 88

      I’m not going to burn up a bunch of space by requoting….but believe me when I say that I take “slam dunk” shots only. My bow shooting skill on targets has very little to do with what shots I take in the field. I may enjoy 30 yard shots on targets, but I haven’t released an arrow at a deer beyond 10 yards in years.

      Jason mentions tuning…..I couldn’t agree more. To me tuning is the entire setup. From brace height to arrow weight to broadhead QUALITY and sharpness. I made 2 very close shots on deer this year that had the potential of going bad. But I believe that my preperation made the difference…..a well tuned shaft and a quality, ridiculously sharp broadhead gave me complete penetration and a short trail.

      As an aside…..I’m not offended by the folks posting and asking for advice after a wounded loss. I AM offended by the responses telling them “don’t worry about it, it happens”. We should learn from our mistakes, and seek advice. But our mistakes SHOULD bother us, and stick with us.

    • sapcut
      Post count: 159

      “don’t worry about it, it happens”.

      Where did you get that quote? Who said that?

    • rnorris
      Post count: 88

      No one specifically in the course of THIS discussion. But when the topic comes up on other forums, that is the battle cry for at least 1/2 of the participants.

    • rnorris
      Post count: 88

      ….and to be clear; “Stuff” DOES happen. Obviously. But we should not take it lightly. I have wounded and lost game animals, and it haunts me. But by retaining that hollow feeling of failure, even if just a little, I make better decisions later on.

      This is just my mindset. I don’t pretend anyone needs to think like me to be correct. I hunt for myself, not to impress anyone else, and I don’t expect anyone to spend time trying to impress ME.

    • David Petersen
      Member
      Post count: 2749

      “Stuff” DOES happen. Obviously. But we should not take it lightly. I have wounded and lost game animals, and it haunts me. But by retaining that hollow feeling of failure, even if just a little, I make better decisions later on.”

      Right on!!!

    • sapcut
      Post count: 159

      “Stuff” DOES happen. Obviously. But we should not take it lightly. I have wounded and lost game animals, and it haunts me. But by retaining that hollow feeling of failure, even if just a little, I make better decisions later on.”

      If I am not mistaken, that is precisely what the Ashby reports are about….Increase recovery rate on shot animals because, at times, arrows DO go where they were not intended.

    • kingwouldbee
      Post count: 44

      J. wesbrock, If I’d have ever dragged a deer back to the cabin and bragged about shooting it up the rear end, my grandfather would have buried his boot in mine…not shook my hand and said congrats.

      I have a size 12 steel toe I would love to help you out with 😯

      The latest volunteer for the Ashby study, got to go to a party see y’all later.

      attached file
    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      JRW wrote: Ed,

      J.Wesbrock here.

      I’ll defer on the rifle analogies, since I’m no firearms expert. Although, I’d be hard pressed to imagine two bowhunting setups for big game that differ as greatly as a 22LR and a 375 H&H. Doesn’t the latter produce over a hundred times more energy than the former?

      Anyway, back to bowhunting. I agree that examining ways to reduce wounding losses is a good thing. But if we go around telling people that with such-n-such setup it’s perfectly OK to try shooting big game up the butt or through the shoulder blades, I think we’ve pretty much lost our credibility on the subject.

      Jason, in the elephant analogy perhaps I should have used a comparison between a 300 grain conventional expanding bullet and a 300 grain solid, both from the .375 H&H. Most conventional 300 grain expanding bullets (“soft points”) will perform well enough to kill and elephant on a broadside, or a very, very slightly quartering chest shot, but some even fail there, breaking up if one of the heavy ribs is hit. Soft points won’t penetrate enough for a brain shot or a quartering shot, and end-to-end “raking shots” are impossible for them. They can’t be relied upon to penetrate the scapula or break the leg bones. The 300 gr. solid works from any angle; can penetrate any bone in the elephant’s body, can rake an elephant end-to-end and is capable of penetrating completely through the skull, with exit! Both have the same and energy and momentum. The difference is in the construction of the projectile. One can be used to do everything the other can, and a lot the other can’t. There’s a reason that solid bullets are the first choice of many of the African professional hunters, for everything they shoot.

      Should the criteria for a ‘well placed shot’ be the same for all 300 grain bullets from a .375? That’s the same logic you are applying to arrows. Not all arrows are created equal. Study data indicates that one can MORE than triple the penetration of a well-tuned, ‘typical’ arrow setup of equal arrow mass, even if a heavy bone is hit. And that’s giving the ‘typical’ the advantage of using a BH with a MA in the 1.4+ range; well above the majority of broadheads in use today. That MA takes in the Woodsman and similar broadheads and many of the wider-cut single blade broadheads. In excess of three times the penetration potential but no difference in acceptable shot criteria?

      I do not advocate folks taking anything short of shots they feel certain they, AND THEIR EQUIPMENT, are capable of making. I DO encourage them to take every opportunity they have to do some test shots into freshly downed animals, from adverse angle and impacts, to determine exactly what the equipment they are using is capable of. If their equipment will consistently penetrate the shoulder bones of the size game they are hunting then they can aim ‘on the shoulder, with confidence that, should they hit a heavy bone by accident, their arrow will penetrate through it and into the thorax.

      Some folks seem to have great difficulty accepting that there are arrow setups which CAN reliably and consistently penetrate through heavy bone. Those arrows do exist. If one chooses not to use them that is perfectly okay, so long as they know, hunt and shoot within the limits of their ability and their equipment’s capability. But the exact same ‘acceptable shot criteria’ applies to those who use arrows that they have personally tested and that have proven to be capable of consistently and reliably providing greater penetrating ability and/or the bone breaking ability; they must know, hunt and shoot within the limits of their ability and their equipment’s capability. What is a ‘well place shot’ for one setup is not necessarily a ‘well placed shot’ with another.

      Know the capability of yourself and your equipment and take only those shots you know are well within those capabilities … but never intentionally push those shots to the limit of your equipment’s capability. Always … ALWAYS … try for the best, but it’s best to ALWAYS, to the very maximum of your ability, plan for the worst that MIGHT happen.

      “King” is about as good an example as I know of. He’s developed and thoroughly tested the arrow setups he’s uning and he well knows its capabilities (as well as his own) and he judiciously applies those capabilities with resounding success.

      In bowhunting there is no such thing as ‘too much’. Overkill is vastly underrated. When s— happens, and sooner or later it will, “overkill” sure trumps “enough, as long as you do your part and put it in the right place”.

      Ed

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Ed,

      Again I’ll take a pass on the rifle hunting discussions. I’ve never used a shotgun on anything bigger than a goose, or a rifle for bigger game than a squirrel (and that was almost ten years ago). Honestly, I’m not interested in what type of rifle it takes to kill an elephant. I’m discussing bowhunting, not rifle hunting.

      Some folks seem to have great difficulty accepting that there are arrow setups which CAN reliably and consistently penetrate through heavy bone.

      I can’t speak for others; only myself. I’ve hit numerous off-side shoulder/upper leg bones on mature whitetails and never had one stop an arrow. But that doesn’t mean I would ever intentionally aim at those bones on the entrance side. Personally, I’ve never been desperate enough to kill an animal to do something that irresponsible. Like you pointed out earlier, nothing is absolutely certain, so why stack the odds even further out of my favor by doing something like that? Perhaps if we’re going to advocate overkill in our arrows, we should apply that same logic to our shot selections.

      In the end, I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on whether or not trying to shoot a healthy big game animal through the pelvis or shoulder blade with an arrow is a responsible idea. It seems to me there’s really no ethical argument for needlessly putting heavy bone obstruction between one’s arrow and the vital organs to be penetrated, especially in the context of a discussion about reducing wounding losses. You may disagree, as is obviously your right.

    • MontanaFord
      Post count: 450

      I was able to find a well-drawn diagram of a whitetail deer’s anatomy. If you look at it, you can see that the shoulder blade is actually quite high on the deer. Basically clear up against the spine. Who’s going to shoot that high on purpose anyway? So by aiming farther forward than the crease behind the shoulder, WHY NOT aim farther forward and put your point of aim closer to the center of the vital mass? Here’s the diagram. Let’s see if it’ll actually work for me or not.

      attached file
    • sapcut
      Post count: 159

      Perhaps if we’re going to advocate overkill in our arrows, we should apply that same logic to our shot selections.

      Because of the bowhunting equipment I use I would not hesitate to put my structurally sound 850ish gr. Grizzly tipped arrow with 34% FOC flying at 170 fps right through the chest of the biggest bull elk I could find, the biggest whitetail buck or the biggest boar if the opportunity arises.

      There is no doubt in my mind that arrow is gonna leave fatal marks and broken bones, should they be in the way.

      I can make that shot kill the animal so why pass it up? That is not a bad shot selection for me and my weapon, regardless of what anyone says or thinks. For the fast and light romantic crowd, I wouldn’t suggest it based on good research.

      In my opinion, shooting big game including big whitetails with .243 cal and smaller rifles IS bad decision making but their doesn’t seem to be much fuss over that.

      I am confident my bow bullet will do more damage than the .243.

      IMO, only someone who loves shooting less lethal, fast and light arrows setups could have any disagreements with the lethality improvements in which they do not use themselves.

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Jason, since, as you rightly pointed out, the .22 LR to .375 H&H analogy had a great disparity in force levels, the two 300 grain bullets from the .375 H&H analogy was just to make it an apple to apple analogy. In this second analogy the bullets are of equal size and force, but differ in construction. The same ‘shot selection’ logic for the two bullets applies equally well to arrows of differing construction, and should not be dismissed out of hand without an explanation of why it does not apply equally well to both.

      From your prior post it sounds like you (as well as all your hunting mates) have incredible success on whitetails with the arrow setup(s) you currently use. I’m curious as to exactly what your usual arrow setup is, and the bow you use?

      From your comments it also sounds like everyone in your group takes only those shots they are certain will result in a well placed hit. Can I then infer that no one in your hunting group has ever hit and failed to recover a deer? Is that correct? If it is not correct, what do you think caused the failure to make a clean kill in those instances where the animal was hit and not recovered? I’m just asking for your opinion of why there was a failure, as no one can know with certainty unless they have the opportunity to examine the failed hit to determine precisely what went wrong; why it failed to be lethal.

      The beauty of doing testing on freshly downed animals is that you get to see the failed shots and determine exactly why they failed to yield a lethal hit. One learns nothing from the successful shots. It’s only when a shot fails that we have the opportunity to determine the cause of the failure. Knowing the cause of the failure permits us to try to find ways to improve our arrow setup to diminish or prevent such a failure from recurring.

      I’m also curious if you have ever shot an animal with a well-tuned, EFOC or Ultra-EFOC arrow having a mass weight above the heavy bone threshold and tipped with a truly sharp, high MA single bevel broadhead; even if it was just a test shot on a recently downed animal. If so, what was the shot outcome?

      Ed

    • kingwouldbee
      Post count: 44

      MontanaFord wrote: I was able to find a well-drawn diagram of a whitetail deer’s anatomy. If you look at it, you can see that the shoulder blade is actually quite high on the deer. Basically clear up against the spine. Who’s going to shoot that high on purpose anyway? So by aiming farther forward than the crease behind the shoulder, WHY NOT aim farther forward and put your point of aim closer to the center of the vital mass? Here’s the diagram. Let’s see if it’ll actually work for me or not.

      Montanaford, did you look at the pic you posted, do you hunt out of a pit blind, the angle of that deer is from about 2 feet off the ground to have that shot angle, most of the whitetail wouldbes hunt from trees.

      This shot might be a little more realistic, this is where I want more than I need.

      attached file
    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      MontanaFord wrote: If you look at it, you can see that the shoulder blade is actually quite high on the deer. Basically clear up against the spine. Who’s going to shoot that high on purpose anyway? So by aiming farther forward than the crease behind the shoulder, WHY NOT aim farther forward and put your point of aim closer to the center of the vital mass?

      MF, you have the concept exactly correct. When I refer to ‘shooting at the shoulder’ that’s what I’m talking about. There’s nothing over the ribs but skin, connective tissue and meat, and that aiming point gives you the maximum amount of room for error.

      Another advantage is that, should the animal jump at the shot it will likely jump forward (they rarely jump backwards 😆 though I did have one impala ram turn a complete backflip when he heard the shot :shock:. Aiming on the shoulder moves your aiming point farther from a potential ‘gut hit’.

      If they react at all, most animals tend to ‘dip’ or ‘duck’ before they start their forward jump, or before they start to ‘turn’ or ‘spin’. I try to aim low on the shoulder to alow for some degree of ‘dip’. If, rather than jumping forward, the animal spins or turns the ‘on the shoulder’ aim also keeps the arrow’s path directed through the thorax for a longer period than does a ‘back of the shoulder’ aim. That applies regardless of whether the animal spins to its right or its left. Think about it. Picture how the animal’s body rotates as the animal turns, then picture that in relation to the path of an arrow that was aimed both back of the shoulder and on the shoulder. Little things, but they sometimes make all the difference between a thorax and/or liver hit and a gut hit.

      Ed

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      kingwouldbee wrote: … this is where I want more than I need.

      Overkill is grossly underrated.

      Ed

    • kingwouldbee
      Post count: 44

      The arrow in this doe looks to only be in the rib cage, also the arrow looks like it was shot at a quartering away angle.

      I know that the DNA of does hasn’t changed over the last 50 years, then how is this bionic doe able to take such a well placed shot?

      attached file
    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      I’ve seen wallabies up and going with arrows sticking out of them just like that, and they are WAY lighter built than a whitetail. These are all bioengineered animals, no doubt:roll:.

      Ed

    • kingwouldbee
      Post count: 44

      Here is another one of those bionic deer, this shot is even farther back in softer tissue.

      The truth of the matter is deer are tough, and have a vary strong will to live.

      As can be seen from these pic’s, shot placement is only “ONE” ingredient to the success of a clean kill.

      Apparently both of the bow hunters made good shots, with bad equipment, there shots where both killing shots, there equipment failed, the broadhead failed to penetrate to a depth that would make for a clean kill.

      EQUIPMENT FAILED NOT SHOT PLACEMENT.

      attached file
    • MontanaFord
      Post count: 450

      kingwouldbee wrote: Montanaford, did you look at the pic you posted, do you hunt out of a pit blind, the angle of that deer is from about 2 feet off the ground to have that shot angle, most of the whitetail wouldbes hunt from trees.

      This shot might be a little more realistic, this is where I want more than I need.

      kingwouldbee…The only point I was trying to make with my diagram is that even by aiming ON the shoulder, as Ed suggests, the shoulder blade sits well above and forward of the vitals’ center of mass. I was just trying to show from a broadside view how much of the vitals are actually open for a shot in that position. But you are right. A high percentage of whitetail hunters probably hunt from tree stands. To answer your question, no, I don’t hunt from a pit blind, and nor do I hunt from a tree stand. I don’t cater to heights particularly well, so I hunt flat on my feet on the ground. But you’re right. For a tree-stand hunter, your diagram is much more realistic. I didn’t take a long time to search for the one I posted, either, though. Thank you for adding your diagram to give an idea what kind of armor, if you will, a deer has above its vitals.

      Also, I agree with you that it was equipment failure that resulted in deer walking around with arrows protruding from their sides. I’m willing to bet both deer in your pictures were shot with compounds. Speed only helps so much with momentum. If there’s no real weight to continue carrying the momentum, the penetration will be minimal, as seen in these photos. Thank you for those examples of equipment failure, as well as your own photographs of equipment success!! Nice hog, by the way. Impressive penetration.

      Michael.

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      MontanaFord wrote: I was able to find a well-drawn diagram of a whitetail deer’s anatomy. If you look at it, you can see that the shoulder blade is actually quite high on the deer. Basically clear up against the spine. Who’s going to shoot that high on purpose anyway? So by aiming farther forward than the crease behind the shoulder, WHY NOT aim farther forward and put your point of aim closer to the center of the vital mass? Here’s the diagram. Let’s see if it’ll actually work for me or not.

      Excellent diagram. The other is a perfect example of why quartering-toward shots should be avoided.

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      From the photos ‘King’ posted it looks like there are some folks shooting arrow setups with which they should also avoid even slightly quartering away shots; which brings us right back to the capabilities of the individual AND the equipment he/she chooses to hunt with dictating what shot angles are acceptable.

      Ed

    • kingwouldbee
      Post count: 44

      Hi MontanaFord, glad to here you hunt on your feet also, I was just pointing out, vary few hunters ever have the shot that the diagram depicts, that shot is from about 2 feet off of the ground and flat broadside.

      In the real world, I would guess there is not 10 bowhunter on here who have ever had that shot, and I might be one of them.

      I had dug a pit blind on a saddle under a oak tree, I called the stand the “jacuzzi stand” because my head was just above the ground and I cut out a seat in the side of the pit just like a jacuzzi.

      As you can see in this pic, the shot is right in his heart angling slightly up ward.

      attached file
    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      kingwouldbee wrote: I was just pointing out, vary few hunters ever have the shot that the diagram depicts, that shot is from about 2 feet off of the ground and flat broadside.

      In the real world, I would guess there is not 10 bowhunter on here who have ever had that shot, and I might be one of them.

      And I would be another. The closest shot I’ve ever had on a whitetail was from a pit blind that was dug into the middle of a clump of 2 foot tall bushes. The deer was eating those bushes! Something caught its attention and it turned its head to look away. I made about a half draw (70# Bear Kodiak) and took the shot with the arrow darned near touching the deer. Got an exit, but not a pass through!

      Ed

    • kingwouldbee
      Post count: 44

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: From the photos ‘King’ posted it looks like there are some folks shooting arrow setups with which they should also avoid even slightly quartering away shots; which brings us right back to the capabilities of the individual AND the equipment he/she chooses to hunt with dictating what shot angles are acceptable.

      Ed

      Hi Doc. looking at the 2 BIONIC deer with arrows in them, both look to have only struck a rib as there are no other bones around there.

      As I look at the shot angles, most hunters would of took that shot angle, the problem was lack of PENETRATION, PENETRATION through a RIB

      Both you and I know poopoo happens in the REAL World, if I hunted in NARNIA,

      I could pretend that I never miss what I shoot at…..

      I could pretend that all of the deer I shoot at stand flat footed waiting for my arrow to get there…….

      I could pretend that I have never lost an animal I hit with an arrow…….

      I could pretend that I am the most ethical hunter of all, and all others, do not have my high standards.

      The truth is NARNIA is a fairytale.

      attached file
    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Though I’ve heard some make the claim, I’ve never personally known a single experienced bowhunter who hasn’t had unintended poor hits. Has anyone?

      Ed

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: From the photos ‘King’ posted it looks like there are some folks shooting arrow setups with which they should also avoid even slightly quartering away shots; which brings us right back to the capabilities of the individual AND the equipment he/she chooses to hunt with dictating what shot angles are acceptable.

      Ed

      No doubt about that. But playing devil’s advocate for a moment, wasn’t there a thread here recently about a gentleman who shot a slightly quartering-away whitetail with a heavy EFOC arrow tipped with a narrow single-bevel head who hit it in the ribs, didn’t get good penetration and lost his deer?

      You asked some good questions of me earlier, which I will answer when I can. Typing long responses on a Blackberry isn’t my strong suit.

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      kingwouldbee wrote: Here is another one of those bionic deer, this shot is even farther back in softer tissue.

      The truth of the matter is deer are tough, and have a vary strong will to live.

      As can be seen from these pic’s, shot placement is only “ONE” ingredient to the success of a clean kill.

      Apparently both of the bow hunters made good shots, with bad equipment, there shots where both killing shots, there equipment failed, the broadhead failed to penetrate to a depth that would make for a clean kill.

      EQUIPMENT FAILED NOT SHOT PLACEMENT.

      Thank you for posting the two incredible pic’s of deer walking around with arrows still sticking in them from “good” shot placement angles. Compare those deer to the photo’s sent by Sharpster in a post a few weeks back “Broadhead Sharpness and Bloodtrails”. I believe the hunter used an 810 grain arrow and an Ashby inspired set-up. The end result was far different…

      Ireland

    • Ireland
      Post count: 108

      J.Wesbrock wrote: [quote=Dr. Ed Ashby]From the photos ‘King’ posted it looks like there are some folks shooting arrow setups with which they should also avoid even slightly quartering away shots; which brings us right back to the capabilities of the individual AND the equipment he/she chooses to hunt with dictating what shot angles are acceptable.

      Ed

      No doubt about that. But playing devil’s advocate for a moment, wasn’t there a thread here recently about a gentleman who shot a slightly quartering-away whitetail with a heavy EFOC arrow tipped with a narrow single-bevel head who hit it in the ribs, didn’t get good penetration and lost his deer?

      You asked some good questions of me earlier, which I will answer when I can. Typing long responses on a Blackberry isn’t my strong suit.

      Not sure it is the same post, by the deer discussed in “Broadhead Sharpness and Bloodtrails” was recovered after “running” 10 yards. It was shot with an Ashby inspired set-up.

      Ireland

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Ireland wrote: [quote=J.Wesbrock][quote=Dr. Ed Ashby]From the photos ‘King’ posted it looks like there are some folks shooting arrow setups with which they should also avoid even slightly quartering away shots; which brings us right back to the capabilities of the individual AND the equipment he/she chooses to hunt with dictating what shot angles are acceptable.

      Ed

      No doubt about that. But playing devil’s advocate for a moment, wasn’t there a thread here recently about a gentleman who shot a slightly quartering-away whitetail with a heavy EFOC arrow tipped with a narrow single-bevel head who hit it in the ribs, didn’t get good penetration and lost his deer?

      You asked some good questions of me earlier, which I will answer when I can. Typing long responses on a Blackberry isn’t my strong suit.

      Not sure it is the same post, by the deer discussed in “Broadhead Sharpness and Bloodtrails” was recovered after “running” 10 yards. It was shot with an Ashby inspired set-up.

      Ireland

      Different deer. But if I’m not mistaken, that deer was hit high broadside. Nothing heavier than a rib was struck, yet the arrow only achieved a few inches of penetration. It was a good example of a sharp head cutting an artery, but not exactly the kind of penetration I would have expected from that setup.

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      From your prior post it sounds like you (as well as all your hunting mates) have incredible success on whitetails with the arrow setup(s) you currently use. I’m curious as to exactly what your usual arrow setup is, and the bow you use?

      I wouldn’t call it incredible, just the expected result of shooting appropriate equipment and using good judgment. For the record, between myself and my core group of hunting partners, we’re also nine-for-nine on black bears, three-for-three on bull moose, and perfect on elk, caribou, and hogs.

      My usual arrow setup is a Beman ICS 340 with an aluminum glue-in/glue-on adapter (used to be just called a Flightmate adapter) and a 125-grain head. Over the years, those heads have been Zwickey four-blades, Zephyr four-blades, Woodsmans, and since 2004, Ace Standards. Total arrow weight is 500 grains +/- a few grains. I shoot recurves with poundages in the mid-upper 50s.

      As to whether or not we’ve ever lost a hit animal, of course we have. But I can’t recall a single time it was due to lack of penetration.

      I personally lost a liver-shot deer eight years ago while hunting a seven-acre woodlot near a residential area. I gave the deer several hours to expire and then followed the trail, which crossed two property lines. I got permission to track across the first, but the landowner of the second refused. As near as I can tell, the deer died in a one-acre thicket of pine trees behind his house. I hope he at least recovered the deer and put it to use.

      Aside from that, over the years I’ve had a few deer jump the string, resulting in grazing wounds above the spine. They were non-vital hits, but I still tracked and grid searched just to be sure. One of them was killed two months later on a property across the road.

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      J.Wesbrock wrote: But playing devil’s advocate for a moment, wasn’t there a thread here recently about a gentleman who shot a slightly quartering-away whitetail with a heavy EFOC arrow tipped with a narrow single-bevel head who hit it in the ribs, didn’t get good penetration and lost his deer?

      Took a few minutes but I located the thread you reference, and I note that in your reply on that thread you suggest that a double lung shot would be a “piece of cake” on the shot described.

      J.Wesbrock wrote: According to his post, he was 14′ up and the deer was 16 yards away. Not a steep angle by any means. My stands are usually 14′ high, and my average shot distance on whitetails is 14 yards. With a broadside or quartering away shot, a double lung pass through is a piece of cake.

      So I’m assuming that would be when using your arrow setup, correct? And your arrow setup would have performed perfectly on this shot, correct? Therefore, since the shot would have been a “piece of cake”, using your setup would always make this an acceptable shot angle, correct?

      One of the things I’ve dwelled upon in the of the Study Updates is the need to know and understand the skip angle of the broadhead(s) one uses, and in particular how easy it is to exceed ANY broadhead’s skip angle on ribs when shooting at steep angles. I believe that this is very likely what happened on this shot. In particular because DaveT reported:

      DaveT wrote: …it (the arrow) also was at a shallower angle than I was in up the tree leading me to believe I got a skip. I’m thinking it somehow now hit a high rib at an awkward angle and changed the trajectory of the arrow.

      And

      DaveT wrote: The buck didn’t seem to duck but now that I think about it he might have turned a bit. The crazy thing is I have shot deer in this very area before and the arrow usually just zips right through without the slightest resistance. … Thinking back on it now it does seem like the arrow deflected pretty hard on the shot when it hit like it hit a big bone but it was just the ribs. I am thinking now that the buck must have moved at impact and with the angle of the shot on the upper ribs the arrow just changed it’s angle and momentum was lost. This seems to be the most plausible explanation I can find.

      Of course we will never know with absolute certainty on this particular hit, because we can’t examine the failed hit to determine exactly what caused the failure, but I THINK that the most likely explanation is broadhead skip.

      I, for one, am opposed to folks taking shots at steep downward angles, as well as shots on the level where the angle of arrow impact with the ribs is likely to exceed the skip angle of the broadhead being used, for just this reason. Here’s just a couple of Update links that I could locate from memory referencing the broadhead skip angle.

      https://www.tradbow.com/members/249.cfm
      https://www.tradbow.com/members/240.cfm
      https://www.tradbow.com/members/239.cfm

      It’s an interesting feature that more of the test shots impacting ribs at steep angles result in skips with failed hits than did those impacting other bones. It appears that this is a result of mother nature’s careful planning. The ribs are perfectly designed to deflect and redirect impact and penetrating forces, to protect the vital internal organs to the maximum degree possible … and here’s another link I just remembered, referencing that factor:

      https://www.tradbow.com/members/258.cfm

      So, once again, we find ourselves back at:

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: … the capabilities of the individual AND the equipment he/she chooses to hunt with dictating what shot angles are acceptable.

      Ed

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Ed,

      Now who’s misunderstanding who?

      Please don’t take what I said out of context. As you know (but didn’t copy and paste here) that post of mine was a response to Dave Peterson about penetration, shot angles, and treestands. It was in no way intended as me telling the gentleman who lost his deer that I or anyone else wouldn’t have been as unfortunate as he…and I was very clear about that.

      I wasn’t there, so I don’t know exactly what went wrong with his encounter. To his credit, he sought out advice on the matter, for which I highly commend him. If more people did that, we’d probably see fewer lost animals every year.

      My only reason for bringing it up on this thread is to interject a little reality into the assumption that every time someone fails to get adequate penetration, using such-n-such arrow would have guaranteed a different outcome.

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      J.Wesbrock wrote: As to whether or not we’ve ever lost a hit animal, of course we have. But I can’t recall a single time it was due to lack of penetration.

      I personally lost a liver-shot deer eight years ago while hunting a seven-acre woodlot near a residential area. As near as I can tell, the deer died in a one-acre thicket of pine trees behind his house. I hope he at least recovered the deer and put it to use.

      Just from curiosity, since you didn’t have the opportunity to examine any of the hit-but-not-recovered animals, how do you know that none of the failures were the result of a lack of penetration or, perhaps, the result of a broadhead skip off a rib’s surface? Can you be certain you had a liver-shot without ever getting to examine the shot?

      Assumptions often lead to wrong conclusions. In Africa I had the opportunity to examine a great many failed shots on bowhunted animals of all sizes, from impala and warthogs to zebra and eland. That’s because the PH’s were/are obligated by law to make every effort to hunt down and recover any wounded animal, regardless of the degree of wound (at least they were in each of the countries I hunted/guided in). Therefore, many of animals having non-lethal arrow wounds were hunted down and shot with a rifle. This was usually done by the native Game Scouts, but it still permitted the opportunity to autopsy and determine the actual reason why the arrow hit had resulted in a non-lethal wound. A few of the most glaring results were: (1) the location of arrow hits were rarely where the hunter described them as being, (2) the angle of arrow impact was rarely as described by the hunter, (3) the degree of arrow penetration was rarely as great as the hunter believed it to be. The accompanying PH’s and/or trackers/game scouts all proved to be much more accurate in reporting the location, angle and depth of arrow penetration of the hunter’s shot. By an overwhelming majority, on these actually bowhunted, non-lethal hit animals the number one cause of the arrow’s failure to be lethal was insufficient penetration.

      J.Wesbrock wrote: For the record, between myself and my core group of hunting partners, we’re also nine-for-nine on black bears, three-for-three on bull moose, and perfect on elk, caribou, and hogs.

      For the record, since I started keeping detailed data on each of my big kills, in 1982, I have 4 hit-and-not-recovered animals, out of 627. One of those four was lost at the end of a good blood trail which terminated in a set of tire tracks and human footprints, and another was visually located dead (at least it was assumed to be dead, as it failed to move over the next week and became the gathering point for a great many scavenger birds of various species). It was simply too far out on an impassable (for a person on foot) mudflat to permit recovery (though it was attempted). Another animal was lost in a deep water swamp and one was lost when it vanished into that same impassable mudflat. (Those two non-recover animals lost to that mudflat, both pigs, were shot within seconds of each other. I stopped hunting near that mud flat after that.)

      Those four wounded animals that I personally failed to recover represents a wound/loss rate of less than 1%, across a quarter century and several dozen different species of big game. They range in size from well less than 100 pounds live weight all the way up to, but not including, elephant. It’s a result of always applying the information from every shred of hard data I have available to help me make the arrow I’m using be the most lethal setup I can devise. It also a result of knowing, hunting and shooting within the limits of both my ability and the capability of the equipment I choose to use; and always … ALWAYS … trying for the best shot I can make but planning, to the maximum of my ability, for the worst hit that might result.

      I will very freely admit that the wounding/loss rate during my first 25 years of bowhunting was far, FAR greater, especially in the early years, and once again when I first tried hunting with a compound, very light, fast arrows and replaceable, multi-blade broadheads, but I can’t provide exact data because I kept no detailed records. Those early years of experiencing what I found to be a totally unacceptable wound/loss rate is what stopped me relying on anecdotal stories of results and started me looking for hard, data verified answers.

      Ed

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Just from curiosity, since you didn’t have the opportunity to examine any of the hit-but-not-recovered animals, how do you know that none of the failures were the result of a lack of penetration or, perhaps, the result of a broadhead skip off a rib’s surface? Can you be certain you had a liver-shot without ever getting to examine the shot?

      Good question, and the answer is simple. In each case, the arrows went through the deer and stuck in the ground, so penetration was a moot point. In the case of the liver shot, the deer bolted a few yards and then walked off. I got a very good look at both the entrance and exit wounds, and the arrow and blood trail confirmed what I saw. Unfortunately, there was no chance for a follow up shot, or I’d have taken one.

      As far as the other deer, I did get to examine the one that was later killed (with his healed scar across his back), and there are no ribs above the spine off which to skip. 😉

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Jason, I’m sorry if that excerpt made your quote appear to mean other than what I took it to mean. I did interpret it to mean that you would consider such a shot to be within an appropriate and acceptable shooting angle, since you said your stand was that high and your average shot was at a closer, steeper shooting angle. I did not read it as merely meaning there was a pathway which would direct an arrow through a double lung shot; assuming the arrow penetrated. For the sake of everyone’s clarity, here’s the entire posting.

      J.Wesbrock wrote: [quote=David Petersen]On the latter topic, one of the many reasons I rarely use tree stands is my discomfort with shooting down at a steep angle, which radically complicates gett a double-lung and/or heard shot. With a high entrance wound, no exit wound and the arrow still in, I’m surprised you got any blood trail at all. What was the shot angle on the buck re elevation?

      According to his post, he was 14′ up and the deer was 16 yards away. Not a steep angle by any means. My stands are usually 14′ high, and my average shot distance on whitetails is 14 yards. With a broadside or quartering away shot, a double lung pass through is a piece of cake.

      Hope that clears that up to everyone.

      J.Wesbrock wrote: My only reason for bringing it up on this thread is to interject a little reality into the assumption that every time someone fails to get adequate penetration, using such-n-such arrow would have guaranteed a different outcome.

      Nowhere among these posting or among the Study data, Study Updates and reports will you find a guarantee of the terminal performance of any arrow setup, even though there are times that the data reflects a 100% frequency rate for the outcomes of specific test or events. Outcome Driven Testing is all about finding THE MOST LIKELY OUTCOME when a specific set of conditions are present. They define what can happen, how frequently it is actually observed to occur and under what conditions it becomes the probable outcome. It’s all about finding and using the arrow setup that improves the odds of a successful outcome, to the maximum extent possible.

      No matter what bow I have to use, that’s the arrow I want on the string; the one that gives the HIGHEST PROBABILITY (emphasis added) of success, no matter what the hit. – Quote from the 2008 Update, Part 6.

      Ed

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: Jason, I’m sorry if that excerpt made your quote appear to mean other than what I took it to mean.

      No problem, Ed. Sometimes it’s easy to get signals crossed on venues such as these.

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Jason, end of the day I think we agree on far more things than we disagree on. 😀

      Ed

    • Jason Wesbrock
      Member
      Post count: 762

      Dr. Ed Ashby wrote: Jason, end of the day I think we agree on far more things than we disagree on. 😀

      Ed

      Indeed.

    • Don Thomas
      Member
      Post count: 334

      I’m away from home on a borrowed computer, and I haven’t read every response, but I would like to reply to the original question. Yes, I do think that candid discussions of wounding are appropriate, and we never would have had the Ashby data without them. However, as a writer and editor I would point out that there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Consider the following two hypothetical descriptions: 1) “I knew I’d hit him a bit far back, and that I might face a difficult recovery.” 2) “I watched in horror as the arrow tore through his guts and sprayed the snow with paunch material, possibly condemning the buck to a slow and agonizing death.” Both statements describe the same event, but common sense dictates that the first is a more prudent choice for publication. I’ve occassionally received criticism for editing some version of Statement Two in the direction of Statement One, but I’m going to continue to do so. This does not mean that I think intelligent discussions of wounding are inappropriate. Don

    • Treetopflier
      Post count: 146

      Good points, Dr. Thomas (and it’s always nice when you show up here on the forum). Indeed we need to think about how we talk of hunting in publications that may wind up in the hands of nonhunters. Even more true with photographs — the “cowboy” macho pose with hunter sitting on game gives me the creeps and when it is used is the marker of a sloppy magazine. But on a “family” website such as this we have more latitude for detailed and descriptive discussions of such touchy bits a wounding loss, but still we should never speak, even to one another, in a way that disrepects the animals we hunt. For an extreme example, see Kingwouldbe’s very bloody kill photos, and consider their purpose. He is not “showing off” with these nor is he being sloppy, but rather these are anatomical graphics showing the effects of various arrow set-ups on various game. It has a purpose and is positive here, but would be unthinkable in a publication (unless the article was on the topic of arrow lethality, and even then it’s touchy). Anyhow thanks for joining the conversation Don and TBM is proof of your good work in editing and TJ’s in photo selection. ttf

    • Don Thomas
      Member
      Post count: 334

      TTF–I agree, and I appreciate the distinction between campfire discussions (even in cyberspace) and public discussions. I also agree that these discussions absolutely have to take place. When I read Fred Bear’s Field Notes ages agos, I was struck by the fact that he never mentioned wounding and losing any animal, and with all due respect to Fred, we all know that it’s impossible to hunt that much and not have it happen. The overall effect was to make the reader wonder just how much he’d really left out. It’s a fine line… I guess my position is that in public there’s no need to make something sound grusome if the point can be made more tactfully. I hope that works for everyone. Don

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      Agree totally. If one hunts enough, no matter how hard he/she tries, they will lose an animal sometimes. It happens with all hunting weapons. To deny, ignore or, worse yet, try to cover up that fact opens hunters up to far more criticism from the “anti’s” than does openly discussing the problem and looking at possibility of ways to reduce the wounding/loss. As Don correctly points out, there is plenty of ‘appropriate verbage’ to describe events. Always try to show ultimate respect for the animals we hunt.

      Virtually every ‘kill photo’ I’ve used in any articles has been photoshoped to remove the blood on the animal and surounding areas. Archery Action, down in Oz, insist that the photos they publish not show excess blood.

      Ed

    • kingwouldbee
      Post count: 44

      Thought this was interesting.

    • wildschwein
      Post count: 581

      I am really enjoying this thread, interesting stuff indeed.

    • Ed Ashby
      Member
      Member
      Post count: 816

      King, I didn’t even know that was on YouTube!

      Ed

Viewing 113 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.