[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Best target #41601

Hard to beat a sand pile or sand pit for a target, especially for broadhead practice.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Turbulator #41574

DK wrote: … I am afraid if i build my strike plate out it will only make it worse. …

You can temporally build the side plate out by using layers of tape. If the rear of the shaft is striking the side plate it may be giving you a false spine reading.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Mountain Cuisine? #15047

Only the tired and hungry ones! – Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Mountain Cuisine? #10248

When I lived in Alaska, and frequently made many long backpack hunts, ranging from 10 to 30 days, I made extensive use of the Apollo 17 fruit cake. For Alaska hunting, it always kept fine without any refrigeration (I never tried it in the desert climates). Eaten with a little water, tea or coffee it gave a tremendous energy boost; a big help when hunting the mountains, and it can serve as a complete food supply; nutritionally complete and 2,500 calories per six ounce serving. On top of that, it is easy to make and it taste great. Here’s the details and the recipe.

According to AP news reports, “this fruitcake so nutritionally complete that a 6-ounce serving provides the daily nutrient and 2,500-a-day calorie requirements for each astronaut.”

According to the Apollo 17 Press Kit, the nutritionally complete fruitcake provides all the nutrients needed by man in their correct proportions. The fruitcake contains many ingredients such as: soy flour, wheat flour, sugar, eggs, salt, cherries, pineapple, nuts, raisins, and shortening. Vitamins have been added. The product is heat sterilized in an impermeable flexible pouch and is shelf-stable until opened. This fruitcake can provide a nutritious snack or meal. This food is planned for use in the future in the Space Shuttle program as a contingency food system.

Apollo 17 Fruitcake Recipe

“SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) — December 18, 1972 — The Apollo 17 astronauts kept munching on their own special fruitcake during man’s last planned flight to and from the moon. You might want to put it on your Christmas surprise menu.

At the request of The Associated Press, U.S. Army Laboratories at Natick, Mass., scaled down the recipe for “Astronaut Fruitcake” and tested it for baking in home kitchens.

The following recipe will yield about two pounds. It may be baked in ten 3-ounce sizes or in two 1-pound coffee cans.

Ingredients:

2/3 cup sifted cake flour

1/2 cup plus 3 tablespoons soy flour

1/2 teaspoon salt

1 teaspoon baking powder

1/4 teaspoon ground cloves

1/4 teaspoon nutmeg

1/2 teaspoon cinnamon

3/4 cup sugar

5 tablespoons shortening

1 extra large egg

1 1/2 tablespoons water

1 cup light raisins

1 1/2 tablespoons water

1/2 cup halves candied cherries

1/3 cup candied pineapple in 1/2-inch dices

1 cup pecan pieces

Instructions:

Mix and sift together flours, salt, baking powder and spices. Set aside. Cream sugar and shortening together thoroughly. Add egg to creamed mixture and mix thoroughly. Blend in dry ingredients and water. Fold fruit and nuts into batter, mix until evenly distributed.

Ten 3-ounce cakes: To form each 3-ounce cake, place 1/2 cup batter on 12-inch square of heavy duty foil, or a double thickness of regular foil. Flatten batter to depth of 3/4 inch. Fold sides around cake batter, then fold up edges of foil so batter is tightly wrapped and will not lose moisture during baking. Bake 1 hour at 300 degrees F. Allow to cool thoroughly – preferably overnight – before unwrapping and serving. (I left mine sealed in the heavy duty foil and froze them until ready to go on the hunt.)

Two 1-pound cakes: Place half the batter in each of two 1-pound coffee cans. Cover top of can with foil and crimp edges to form seal. Bake upright in a pan of water in 300 degree F oven for 3 1/2 hours. Be sure the foil does not touch the water in the pan, as it may draw up water into the cake during the baking.”

Source: Associated Press news release, published in various papers: San Mateo Times – Saturday, December 16, 1972 – San Mateo, California, page 7.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: To Foot or not to Foot #18261

R2 wrote: Hey Dr. Ed, you just sayin you never know where you might just “??put your little foot, put your little foot, put your little foot right down”??? :D:D

Yep, I’ve done that more than once!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: To Foot or not to Foot #54163

Simple answer: foot it! You MIGHT never need the extra strength but what do you lose by having the extra strength there – “just in case”? Nothing. You just MIGHT need that extra strength SOMETIME, and if that ever does happen you will probably never know you really needed it. On the other hand, if you DO ever need it and it’s not there and you WILL be sorry it was not there.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Open stance or conventional ? #30463

Most folks make things harder than they should be. On of my early mentors, and the best deer killer with a bow I’ve ever known, was fond of saying, “Shoot’n ain’t the same as hunt’n”. Animals rarely present ‘picture perfect’ shot opportunities. I’ve always practiced shooting from as many different positions as I could conger up in my imagination.

I base my ‘killing zone’, the range I will shoot animals at, on the accuracy I can achieve with certainty. I consider any shot ‘close enough to kill’ as a perfect shot … as long as I do my part by getting ‘close enough to kill’.

I’ve never considered the ability to put shot after shot into a tight group from a fixed shooting position as being of much value to the hunter. Within one’s personal ‘kill zone’, being able to reliably put the first arrow ‘close enough to kill’ from whatever position one has to take to make the shot as the correct measure of shooting skill for the bowhunter.

Most folks overthink their shooting. Relax, have fun with your shots, practice those ‘whacky’ position shots in ‘groups of one’; never firing two consecutive shots from the exact same position. Learn how to know when you are ‘close enough kill’ on the shot offered. Then all you have to do is make that first shot ‘close enough to kill’; just like you will have done hundreds of times in practice.

It’s always worked for me. If you want to know more about my practice and hunting methods buy my book … and help out our most severely wounded warriors at the same time (ALL royalties go directly the the Fisher House Foundation)!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Single bevel Question… #13458

wojo14 wrote: Ed my set up is a 51# @ 27″ static tip recurve. ( I draw 27″)

Arrow is an Easton ACC pro hunter. 648total weight.

27.6% efoc. The 200gr Kodiak heads with 100 gr inserts shoot awesome.

I was hoping this would be good for Canadian moose this fall….?

Get it really sharp and I’d happily use that on a moose!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: DR ED ASHBY NEW BOOK #13296

Wojo, glad you enjoyed the read.

So far, the book has raised about $600.00 for the Fisher House Foundation. Need to raise a bunch more! Every cent of the royalties go DIRECTLY to the Fisher House (never passes through my hands), to help our wounded warriors and their families. Tell everyone you know that they need to buy a copy!

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Single bevel Question… #35117

When I was doing the buffalo testing there were very few single-bevel broadheads available to test with. Most of the testing was done with the 190 Grizzly, in three configurations; full-width, narrowed to 1″ and narrowed to 7/8″. The narrowed heads were made by changing the blade angle WITHOUT narrowing the tanto tip. There’s no doubt that the narrower the blade the better the penetration. That said, the full width 190 Grizzly, when mated to a suitable arrow, breached the heavy bones and gave thorax-traversing penetration on the buffalo.

An important factor worth considering came from the Heavy Bone Threshold teasing. On EFOC arrows EVERY broadhead with a Mechanical Advantage of at least 2.6 gave a 100% heavy bone breaching rate when arrow mass was above 650 grains. Once the bone was breached the resultant overall-penetration was more dependent on the amount of arrow FOC than on the broadhead’s width. In other words, the full-width Grizzly on a meaningfully higher FOC arrow gave higher average post-breaching penetration than the narrower broadheads gave on arrows with a meaningfully lower amount of arrow FOC.

Bottom line: the last buffalo I killed was with a 655 grain arrow at 31.4% FOC. It was shot from the same 82# longbow used for much of the testing. It not only breached an entrance AND an exit-side rib but drove 26″ of arrow out the off-side. That arrow had a full-width prototype of the Ashby broadhead, which has a somewhat lower MA than the full-width 190 Grizzly.

Is it worth the effort to narrow the broadhead? Perhaps. Especially if one is shooting a lower poundage bow on very large game, or if one has an exceptionally short draw-length. I only draw 27″ but know that a full-width Grizzly (or TuffHead, or A-Bowyer, etcetera) will give me enough penetration for Cape or Asian buffalo. Enough said.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: DR ED ASHBY NEW BOOK #24562

Colmike, PM sent.

Unfortunately, the Veldskins are only available from small, local shoemakers and some taxidermist in South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Botswana. That’s a shame. It’s an excellent show for the stalking hunter, especially in thorn and cactus country. The original Clark’s Desert Boot was of the Veldskin design but the newer ones are not exactly the same as the originals.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: DR ED ASHBY NEW BOOK #23777

cpbiv wrote: [quote=Fallguy]I couldn’t find that Dr. Ed was selling it from a website …

That’s correct. I don’t get involved in the book sales at all … and 100% of the royalties go from the publisher DIRECTLY to the Fisher House Foundation via direct deposit. I don’t get involved with those either!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A good FOC arrow saved a botched shot! #11081

Great story and photos! You did it right; you tried for the best but planned for the worst. Bad hits can/do/will happen to everyone who shoots very much game with bow and arrow.

Congratulations!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Backcounty College – optics for close quarters hunting #17490

I ALWAYS carry a set of small bino’s while hunting close cover. They help me see into dark shadows and deep into or through the brush. Would not be without them! Through the years they have located many a ‘hidden’ animal for me. My chosen set for the last several decades has been a set of Zeiss 8×20’s. In more open country I use a set of Leitz 10×40’s.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: One fletch, two fletch, not so new fletch. #29788

How could I not try those bows? I was ‘passable’ for accuracy with them. Hardest thing was getting use to the wide, flat string and no nock. It would take a bit of getting accustomed to but I think I could learn to hunt successfully with one.

Doc, you remember correctly; each individual arrow is tuned by shortening the shaft until it “shoots straight” and, thus, as no two ‘broadheads’ seem to be anywhere near the same size and weight, and there’s no ‘standard shaft’, each arrow ends up a different length.

Ed

[Author]

Posts