[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Broadhead Sharpening Stones #8174

If you’re ‘sharpening challenged’ then it’s definitely the KME. The diamond steels work fine, but work with light pressure. With heavy pressure the imbeded diamond chips come loose on most of the steels. Among diamond sharpeners I like the Jewel Stik best; the diamonds don’t seem to come loose and the ‘fine’ side is really an ultra-fine. The smaller (5″) three-sided Jewel Stik can also be adapted to use with the KME system by tapping out the screw hole in the end of the steel.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A&A Fletching #63007

fartski wrote: Jumping in late, but what are these A&A feathers? Are they custom cut or something you buy?

Here’s the easy way to start. Go over to the EFOC and Fletching thread on the new Friends of EFOC forum. Here’s the link:

https://www.tradbow.com/members/cfmbb/messages.cfm?threadid=C8EA4FBD-1422-1DE9-ED1A1C909376B7B6

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ashby forum reborn — please read! #63003

The new format should make finding information much easier. Can’t speak for others but having the information scattered out among all the other post, on both forums, certainly made it more difficult for me to find item to refer folks over to.

Hope everyone enjoys!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Noteable Quotes! #62031

So little done, so much to do. – Cecil Rhodes

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Noteable Quotes! #61653

Anyone who isn’t confused really doesn’t understand the situation. – Edward R. Murrow

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: FOC question #61511

Just to reinforce what Troy said, your bow – any bow – is capable of imparting only a set amount of force to your arrow. Think of it the same as the gas in your car’s tank; how much ‘work’ you can do with that fuel – in this case how far you can drive – depends on the efficiency with which that fuel is used. It’s the same with your arrow; the more efficiently it uses the bow’s force the more ‘work’ it can do with whatever force the bow can give it.

Each of the penetration enhancing factors increases arrow efficiency; they conserve the arrow’s force. The Mechanical Advantage of the broadhead determines the final application of that force. The higher the broadhead’s MA the more efficiently whatever force the arrow retains at impact is applied to penetration.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A&A Fletching #61486

Steve, I keep mine at the 1/2″ height, just changing the length until I reach the minimum surface area required to stabalize the flight under all shooting conditions.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: It's getting CLOSE! #60908

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A long look at fletching and EFOC #60871

You might want to try them at the ‘standard’ A&A pattern height of 1/2″; increasing the length a bit, if necessary. At that height we found them quieter but, more interestingly, virtually impervious to being wet. This appears to be a factor of the relative ‘stiffness’ of the 1/2″ high fletching. We were able to soak them in a bucket of water for a full 30 minutes, remove them and, without even shaking the water off, have them shoot to the same point of impact as when the fletching was dry (with a 190 grain Grizzly BH) at 40 yards.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: FOC question #60856

Bowman, both arrow weight and EFOC are penetration enhancing factors. Each offers its own contribution to arrow penetration, and each also complements the other. In other words, from a given bow, when all else is equal in arrow design a heavier arrow penetrates better than a light weight arrow. When two arrows have equal design features, and are of equal weight, but differ in the degree of FOC, with one having normal or high FOC and the other having EFOC, the one with the EFOC will show better penetration into tissues. When it comes to the degree of effect on penetration, EFOC has a greater effect than does arrow weight. It is, however, important to maintain an arrow mass of at least 650 grains (the Heavy Bone Threshold).

What all that means is that a lighter weight arrow (but still above the Heavy Bone Threshold) having EFOC or UEFOC will show as much tissue penetration as a significantly heavier arrow having normal or high FOC, but when considering arrows of equal FOC (regardless of the degree of FOC) the heavier arrow penetrates tissues better.

If you would like to read more about the relationship between EFOC, arrow weight and penetration you can read through the later 2008 updates. Here are links to directly related Updates:

https://www.tradbow.com/members/2008_Study_Update_Part_3.cfm

https://www.tradbow.com/members/2008_Study_Update_Part_4.cfm

https://www.tradbow.com/members/2008_Study_Update_Part_5.cfm

https://www.tradbow.com/members/2008_Study_Update_Part_6.cfm

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Need help with carbon arrow selection #60477

I generally start my presentations by asking the audience to ask themselves two questions: (1) How many times have you heard of a bowhunter losing an animal because their arrow didn’t penetrate enough and, (2) How many times have you heard of a bowhunter losing an animal because their arrow penetrated too much? A show of hands indicates that most bowhunters recognize that inadequate arrow penetration does occur and that it is a less than uncommon problem. Therein lies the crux.

Unquestionably there are many bowhunters who have experienced inadequate arrow penetration. We are trying to present information for those who have had, and do have, problems achieving adequate arrow penetration, with the bow(s) they use and on the animals they hunt. If one does not have that problem then there’s nothing for them in the information presented here. If, however, penetration is a concern for you, on the animals you hunt, then we’re presenting a concept that allows you to achieve greater penetration, on all hits. The data supporting this is overwhelming and the reports of results supporting that data mounts daily. By addressing the factors that affect arrow penetration, the terminal performance of one’s hunting arrow, for those who do have that problem, can be improved. For those that don’t have that problem, then what they are using is fully adequate for them, with the bow(s) they use and on the animals they hunt.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Need help with carbon arrow selection #60423

J.Wesbrock wrote: Ed,

Thanks for posting that information. It actually demonstrates exactly what I’ve been saying. As bowhunting equipment has become historically “more lethal” wounding losses remained relatively consistent. That leaves us with that one important common denominator: the proverbial loose nut behind the wheel.

I severely question that the archery equipment in common useage today has become “historically more lethal”. On the contrary, I think much of the newer equipemnt is less lethal, and that particularly applies to arrows. I think that the ‘more traditional’ arrow setups you use are more lethal than most of what the wheely-bow crowd commonly use, and every shred of data I have indicates that there are arrow setups more lethal that what we ‘moderns’ tend to consider as ‘traditional’. There are many ‘primitive tribes’ that have historically used arrow setups very similar to the EFOC/UEFOC setups the Study’s data shows to perform, statistically, at a more lethal level, and with great success. I’ll put the success rate of the PNG matives, with their ‘crude’ bows and ‘primitave’, unfletched UEFOC arrows against any modern bowhunter I’ve even guided or hunted with.

This forum has gone a long way towards collecting feedback from those now using EFOC/UEFOC arrow setups with single-bevel, high MA broadheads that is validating the Study’s findings; and that was its purpose from the outset – to obtain comparative feedback from other bowhunters who have hunted big game with both the Study-indicated arrow setups and the more ‘conventional’ types of arrow setups.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Need help with carbon arrow selection #60375

J.Wesbrock wrote: That’s why we can also draw from several decades of collective recreational bowhunting.

 

If your setup works flawlessly for you, that’s great – for you. However it’s the ‘several decades of collective recreational bowhunting’, along with my persinal experiences. as both a bowhunter and a big game guide in Africa, with the ‘commonly used’ arrow setups, that started me looking for an arrow setup that offered a higher success rate. And it isn’t just me that has observed problems with the ‘commonly used’ arrow setups. Consider the following ‘several decades of collective recreational bowhunting’:

Bowhunting Studies

1. In an unpublished report for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Landwehr, T. J. (1983), surveyed

3,909 Minnesota bowhunters in 1982. The data from this study indicates a wounding rate of 53% in Minnesota.

The study goes on to find that at a state?wide level nearly 6,500 Minnesota deer were shot by arrows and never

retrieved in 1982.

2. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from St. Croix, Jan. 15, 1947, 191

bowhunters killed 24 deer and left 6 carcasses. Wounding rate was 50% (61 shots per kill).

3. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from St. Croix, Red Lake, and Cloquet,

Jan. 15, 1948. St. Croix – 293 bowhunter killed only three deer out of a population of 500?600. Red Lake – 83

archers killed one deer and wounded another. Cloquet – 27 archers – no deer killed.

4. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from Camp Ripley, Oct. 15, 1954, archers

killed 43 deer. A large number of deer were reported as wounded by archers.

5. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from Camp Ripley, Jan. 15, 1957, archers

killed 96 deer. 30 deer were reported wounded.

6. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Quarterly Progress Report from Camp Ripley, July 15, 1959, 11,086

archers killed 403 deer, 59.1% wounding rate. In questionnaires bowhunters reported firing 2,550 shots to kill 126 deer (40.9%) and wound 182 (59.1%). An average of 20.2 arrows was fired per kill.

7. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Summaries of Wildlife Research Findings 1991, edited by Blair

Joselyn, Camp Ripley Preliminary Results.

1. 1st Hunt – Oct. 19th, 1,626 hunters, Oct. 20th 1,376 hunters: Hunters killed 119 deer. Hunters reported wounding

and not retrieving 40 deer.

2. 2nd Hunt – delayed until Nov. 30th, 591 hunters, Dec. 1st, 562 hunters: Hunters killed 100 deer. 12 reports of

wounded deer.

8. A major study in Texas by Boydston, G.A. and Gore, H.G., (1987) collected data from 3,568 hunters over a thirteen

year time period. The authors found a wounding rate of over 50% and found that more than 21 shots were

needed per kill. The authors state that these numbers are conservative due to the fact that they are based on

bowhunter reported surveys. This study concluded that shot placement is for all practical purposes random, that

wounds clot quickly leaving poor blood trails, that poorly hit deer, more often than not, are lost, and that almost

all abdominally shot deer die a slow death due to peritonitis.

9. A study by Aho, R.W. (1984) for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources indicates that bowhunting results

in a 58% wounding rate.

10. Causey, M.K., Kennamer, J.E., Logan, J. and Chapman, J.I., (1978) indicated that bowhunting in both Alabama and

South Carolina results in a 50% wounding rate.

11. In a survey of Georgia bowhunters, Croft, R.L. (1963), found wounding rates over 78%.

12. A study by Downing, R.L., (1972) found crippling rates of 50%. Crippling rate refers to unretrieved mortally

wounded deer in Georgia.

13. Garland, L.E., (1972) indicates that bowhunting in Vermont has resulted in a wounding rate of 63%.

14. Gladfelter, H.L., Kiensler, J.M. and Koehler, K.J. (1983) found wounding rates of 49% for bowhunting in Iowa.

15. In a survey of archery hunters, Hansen, L.P. and Olson, G.S. (1989) found a wounding rate of 52% for Missouri.

16. Harron, J.S.C. (1984) found a 56% wounding rate for Wisconsin, as a three?year average.

17. Jackson, R.M., and Anderson R.K. (1982) determined wounding rates at 44% for Wisconsin.

18. Langenau, E.E. and Aho, R.W., (1983) found wounding rates of 55%, and 13.25 shots needed per kill in several

Midwestern states.

19. In a study of South Dakota bowhunting, McPhillips, K.B. (1983) and McPhillips, K.B., Linder, R.L. and Wentz, W.A.

(1985) determined wounding rates to be between 48% and 56%, and number of shots per kill to be 13.8.

20. In a study for the Missouri Department of Conservation, Sheriff, S., Haroldson, K., and Giessman, N. (1983) found

wounding rates of 50%.

21. Stomer, F.A., Kirkpatrick. C.M., and Hoekstra, T.W. (1979) found wounding rates of 58% in Indiana.

22. Westcott, G. and Peyton, R.B. (1986) report wounding rates of 50% for Michigan

There are numerous earlier studies, many of which wre listed in the original Natal Study, that show near identical would-loss rates for recreational bowhunting. It appears that little has changed through the years. All I can document is my own wound-loss rate since I started using what the data indicates to be more effective arrow setups and keeping detailed records, and it is below 1% across over 600 big game animals. What we are trying to convey is the information on how to construct what the data shows to be the most humane and lethal arrow setup and obtain feedback of the outcomes others are obtaining when using these arrow setups, as compared to the outcomes they have observed with the arrow setups they previously used. So far the feedback indicates a noticable increase in favorable results.

Nothing against others using whatever arrow setup they choose to use, so long as it works equally well for them. Feedback from those who have actually used both types of arrow setps to actually take big game is always beneficial.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Noteable Quotes! #60257

“Time just seems to fly away for a boy. That, I s’pose, is why one day you wake up suddenly and you ain’t a boy any longer.” ? Robert Ruark

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A&A Fletching #60250

Steve, it sounds like you need to increase the size of your fletching slightly. Go slow, increasing just 1/4″ at a time until you have total flight stability under all shooting conditions.

Here’s a cut-and-past from a previous post on the step by step tuning I do for the A&A fletching. It sounds like you are at step 5, which I’ve marked in ‘bold’.

I tune the fletching to give the smallest fletching that will stabilize the broadhead under all shooting conditions. I prefer the A&A fletching pattern, which utilizes a turbulator forward of the fletching. Here’s the process I use to tune the A&A fletching, but the same process works for determining the minimum size for any fletching pattern. Just as when bare shaft tuning, finding the minimum amount fletching is a step by step process.

1. Once you feel that you have the bare shaft tuned correctly, mount a matched-weight broadhead on one of the shafts. First use what you are absolutely certain is ample fletching to stabilize the broadhead and VERIFY that the fletched-shaft/broadhead has identical impact to the field-point tipped bare shaft. You can use any fletching pattern you like for this step.

2. Once your shaft tuning is verified you can begin tuning the fletching. Switch to the A&A fletching pattern on the broadhead tipped shaft, starting at about 5” length if you are using 3-fletch, or 4” if using 4-fletch. DO NOT add the turbulator yet. Shoot the arrow several times and check the flight stability.

3. If all is well, begin to gradually decrease the length of the A&A fletchings until the point where you FIRST see a slight instability in the arrow’s flight. Be sure to shoot several shots before making a decision on the flight stability, and it helps if you can have another person also watching for flight instability too.

4. Now add the turbulator and check to be sure the flight is again completely stable. If addition of the turbulator does not completely stabilize the arrow’s flight increase the fletching length by ¼” and check again, with the turbulator in place.

Many factors affect what’s the minimum A&A fletching that will work FOR YOU. A big factor is quality of your release (mine’s poor). Other major factors are the type of broadhead (how much wind shear it generates) and the amount of FOC on the arrow and the shaft’s length. Your draw length and whatever length shaft you are using are also factors. At a given amount of FOC, the longer the shaft the less fletching required; because of the lengthened rear steering arm. Your draw length vs. shaft length affects the point of maximum shaft flex upon release.

5. Once you feel you have the fletching at the minimum size for stability there’s only two tasks remaining; (1) shoot the arrow a lot to verify that there is sufficient fletching to stabilize the arrow even when you get a bad release and (2) check arrow flight on a windy day. When checking for flight in windy conditions you will want to take shots at as many angles to the wind as possible, but at an absolute minimum check the arrow’s flight in a full cross-wind and both quartering with and quartering into the wind. If there is any problem with stability in either of these tests you should increase the length of the fletching gradually, in ¼” increments, until the arrow shows stable flight under all conditions of release and wind direction.

I’ve not found any release or wind direction problems when using the high MA single blade broadheads, because of their very low wind shear factor, but many of the wide-narrow broadheads require an increase in fletching area to achieve flight stability in quartering wind conditions.

This sounds like a lot of work, and it is, but it is a one time job for a given arrow setup. It’s analogous to a working up the very best handload for a rifle; and cheaper and easier to accomplish than finding the best rifle handload too!

I hope the foregoing is coherent enough to be understood. If not lets kick the subject around a bit and see if we can clarify anything that’s in doubt.

Ed

[Author]

Posts