[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: help w/ building tuffhead foc arrow #30802

Troy Breeding wrote: I feel pretty sure you can rule out any of the 500’s. After that I’d pick the lightest grain per inch 400 you have. With 300 up front you don’t want more grains per inch in the shaft than you can help. The testing I’ve done has shown that any finished arrow that has 16 grains per inch or more have passed the point of deminishing return.

Troy

I think Troy meant to say any finished arrow with a total weight that is 16 or more grains per pound of the bow’s draw weight.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: help w/ building tuffhead foc arrow #29661

Troy Breeding wrote: I’ll say it again, never try to start out with a precut to length shaft.

I just went thru all this with Ron at KME. It’s easier to tune the shaft to the bow by cutting small cuts off the shaft than it is to try and tune the bow to a precut length shaft.

Now to the tuning. It’s just a guess (because everyone shoots different), but the 7595 may be alittle bit stiff. The 7595 is a 340 deflection.

The reason I say that is your draw length and point weight.

If you have any of the 7595 shafts in full length start with one and see. If at full length the shaft shows stiff then drop to a 5575 and work your way shorter and shorter until the flight becomes clean.

Now, don’t be fooled by how the shaft sticks in the target. Sometimes stiff shafts will kick off the sight window and give the appearance of a weak shaft. One way to tell this is to rub red lipstick on the back half of the sight window side of the shaft. If you see lipstick on the sight window strike plate after shooting it tells the truth on what is really happening.

The external footing are used to support the shaft behind the insert. With extra weight up front the inserts are easily pushed into the shaft when something hard to hit, plus it helps prevent breaking of the shaft behind the insert.

Steel adapters are highly reccommended. Alumium adpt. are one of the leak links in any setup.

Troy

I totally agree. Troy is spot on.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: How far will you shoot? #27860

I like practicing at very long range, though most of my practice is taking weird angle and off-balance shots at close range. I too think the doing some long range practice helps one’s close range shooting. Shooting game: as close as I can get. My average across the last 627 animals is less than 16 yards. if THE GAME IS REALLY LARGE AND IS ALSO A ‘SOFT’ ANIMAL I will stretch that out to near 30 yards. “Standard size” big game and, definitely, dangerous game, 20 yards or closer.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: sloppy release…help me… #18717

This is a tip intended NOT for those who CAN achieve a good release but for those who CANNOT achieve a good release.

I have a congenital bone deformity in my right hand (also a matching bone defect in both feet) and have NEVER been able to achieve a smooth release (I drag the ring finger). However, over a half century ago I got some great advice from Ben Person that solved the release problem, at least it did for me.

Ben’s advice: Shoot a bow of long length (less finger-pinch), with as heavy a draw weight as you can learn to use. It also needs to be a bow with very stable, thick, heavy, relatively slow-recovering limbs (like a traditional, straight-end longbow). Then quit worrying about the release, and concentrate only on developing a rock-solid follow-through; after release maintaining as solid a hold with the bow arm as possible. If the follow-through is solid the thick, heavy, slower limbs will pull the string (and arrow) back into correct alignment long before the arrow leaves the bow, resulting in an accurate shot.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Drought #17700

Still really dry here in South Texas (south end of the Edwards Plateau, about 80 miles north of Del Rio). Many ranches totally de-stocked. Most of the juniper has died in my area. Oaks and mesquites still hanging in, but there have been no acorns or mesquite beans for the last two years, and looks like none for this year. Just spent $3000.00 to keep my windmill producing water for the game and have been feeding year-round ever since I moved here. Don’t think there would be much game around if a few folks didn’t have water and food out for them. Deer population noticeably down but the hogs and turkeys are holding their own (with help). Still, not the worst drought on record. The drought of the 1950’s was worse, and lasted longer than this one (so far).

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: EFOC at Pope and Young #10810

The EFOC presentation at Pope and Young went extremely well, and it was very well received. We ARE making headway in getting folks to understand AND USE EFOC/UEFOC arrow setups. I was amazed at the number of folks already using them, and seeking more information about them.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Broadheads, left bevel or right bevel? #54905

Just for edification: A file’s coarseness of cut is classified according to the spacing of teeth. The names used to designate the different grades of cut range from rough, coarse, bastard, second-cut, smooth and dead smooth. A bastard file is a file whose cut is intermediate between the coarse cut file and the second cut file.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: What broadheads do you like? #42587

For big game: TuffHead, ABowyer and Grizzly. My first preference is the TuffHead 300 grain; lots of FOC when placed on a good one-piece insert/adaptor.

Light game: Deadhead (still have a few). Turkeys: Simmons Safari (glue-on).

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: THE WEAK LINK #42575

I’m waiting to see how this works out. I tried a number of different materials, including some polymers, for both internal footings (back of brass inserts) and one-piece adaptor/insert/footings, but not Lexan. Polycarbonates are pretty tough, and should make a great internal footing material but I wonder about the rigidity at the adaptor’s taper, especially on an angular impact. Never found anything that worked as well as a hardwood IF back of a long brass adaptor/insert. With enough tinkering I hope you find one! Wood’s problem is the lack of uniformity; grain and density).

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Minimum spine? #42564

Troy Breeding wrote: I stopped shooting recycled beer cans years ago.:D Troy

Me too!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Adding tube weight to AD Trad Lites? #33914

WORDS OF WISDOM FROM DOC NOCK! AT THE UPPER RANGES OF FOC THE GREATEST GAINS COME FROM REDUCING WEIGHT AT THE ARROW’S REAR.

ED

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Steel Broadhead Adapters Bending #12770

I HAD BAD PROBLEMS WITH THE 75 GR. STEEL INSERTS FROM THREE RIVERS BREAKING. WITH 125 GR. STEEL ADAPTORS I’VE HAD FEW PROBLEMS (I USE ONES FROM CUSTOM KING) WHEN THEY WERE SECURED WITH LOCTITE INTO BRASS OR STEEL INSERTS.

IF NOT SECURED WITH LOCTITE INTO THE STEEL ADAPTORS CAN BACK OUT AND WILL THEN BEND EASLIY.

BEST OF ALL HAVE BEEN THE ONE-PIECE INSERT/BH ADAPTORS OF STEEL. HAVE NOT BENT ANY OF THEM.

ED

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: FOC? #12761

DAVE P., TOMBOW AND SMITHHAMMER HAVE GIVEN LOTS OF GOOD ADVICE HERE. I’M A MATH GEEK TOO, BUT DON’T MAKE IT HARDER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE.

WOULD TYPE MORE BUT RIGHT HAND USELESS UNTIL I GET SURGERY ON TRAPPED ULNAR NERVE. WORKING LEFT HANDED, WITH JUST ONE TYPING FINGER.

ED

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Tuffhead 225 gr. Penetration #49235

David Petersen wrote: Tried lion once and couldn’t stomach it, nor could my two dinner guests. (Don Thomas will disagree.):twisted:

I’M WITH DON: LION, LEOPARD, CHEETAH, SERVEL, CARACAL, BOBCAT, LYNX … ALL VERY GOOD EATING.

ED

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Arrow comparisons #47130

You need to make those penetration comparisons on fresh tissues. In the early days of testing I tried almost every synthetic test medium I could think of, from ballistic gel to all sorts of combinations of material. None correlate with the outcomes seen in real tissues. I’m not the only one to find that either. About eight or nine years ago a team composed of European forensic pathologist tried to find a test medium for arrow testing that would duplicate their findings in real tissues and also failed to find one. It’s simply impassible to duplicate the complicated matrix of blood suffused tissues having multiple-directional curved surface hard tissues imbedded within it.

Mother Nature designed the body to both absorb and redirect impact and penetration forces, but not to have strong pressure upon the shaft (shaft drag) by the soft tissues. In fact the blood lubricates the shaft, reducing friction. All artificial test mediums lack this feature and most targets are designed to stop arrows based upon shaft friction with the material.

Bottom line; the penetration seen see in fresh, real tissues is not the same as what is seen in artificial mediums.

Ed

[Author]

Posts