[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A long look at fletching and EFOC #62388

The amount of pressure you need on the arrow’s rear is affected by a number of factors. The more fletching surface area you have the greater the pressure. The more off-set in the fletching the greater the pressure exerted, the more helical you have in the fletching the greater the pressure exerted.

On the other side of the equation the higher the arrow’s FOC the longer the rear steering arm, and the less fletching pressure required to steer the arrow. The broadhead you chose to use is also a factor. Some broadheads exhibit more windsheer effect than others, and you need sufficient fletching pressure to overcome that.

The more pressure the fletching exerts the more drag there is on your arrow in flight. This slows your arrow in flight. A straight fletched feather (no offset and no helical) still induces arrow rotation in flight and the less fletching surface area you can use will result in more arrow speed and more retained arrow force downrange.

It’s all a balancing act, but there are advantages to using the least amount of fletching, with the least offset and helical you can get away with. The smaller, ‘straighter’ fletching not only conserves arrow energy in flight it also results in quieter arrow flight and less wind drift in a cross wind. An added advantage we’ve found with the short, stiff A&A fletching pattern on the EFOC arrows is that you can soak the feathers in bucket of water for 30 minutes, take them out and, without even shaking the excess water off, put them in a shooting machine and they will still shoot into the same hole at 40 yards. They are virtually impervious to the effects of having wet feathers.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Coues kill — arrow set-up #62366

jgilmer wrote: ed

how far from the back of the shaft are you mounting them?

The farther back you can mount the feather the less fletching you’ll need (and the higher FOC you will achieve). That’s because mounting them farther back gives a longer steering arm for the fletching. Thus, it takes less fletching surface area to exert the same amount of steering pressure on the shaft’s rear. I mount mine as far back as I can and still have clearance for my shooting glove. I have friends using these with mechanical releases, and they set them virtually touching the nock. The can stabalize the 190 Grizzly, Brown Bear and Ashby BH with three 2″ fletches, even a compound speeds, under all wind conditions.

With my poor finger release I use 4 fletch, each 2.5″ long. With a really clean release one can use less. However, when determining how much fletching you need you’ll need to check a couple of things. First, be sure to check the flight of your arrow (with broadhead) in all wind conditions; cross wind, quartering wind, into the wind and with a trailing wind; to be certain that you have enough to overcome any windsheer effect of the broadhead. Second, shoot them enough to be sure there’s sufficient fletching for stable flight when you get one of those extra-poor finger release.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Coues kill — arrow set-up #62180

jgilmer wrote: who sells the A&A fletches?

No one! One of the great things about the A&A pattern is that the cut is so simple that all you need is a quality pair of sharp scissors and a templet for a guide. The back is a straight, verticasl cut, 1/2″ high. From there it is a straight taper to the leading edge.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A long look at fletching and EFOC #60316

Bringing this to the top for someone who asked about the A&A fletching.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Effective Range/Max effective range #57814

Troy, the method I use is to make a graph showing arrow weight along the X-Axis and the percent of gain in arrow ‘force’, per grain of increase in arrow weight, along the Y-Axis. In this application, for ‘force’ you can use either arrow KE or arrow Momentum. I did both KE and Momentum, and either works. If you want to look at both you can either do separate graphs or use a double Y-Axis, to show both on one graph. Your lightest arrow will give you your base point for calculating the percent of gain in arrow force per grain of increase in arrow weight. Plot the graph and you will see the point where the percent of gain abruptly decreases. I enter my data into a spread sheet and let the spreadsheet plot the graph. This will show you the arrow weight for maximum efficiency of transfer of the bow’s stored force to the arrow. It won’t show you the ‘maximum effective range’ of the arrow though.

Maximum effective range implies some subjective/variable components, such as the design of the arrow and how well the archer is able to compensate for heavier arrow’s more arching trajectory; a result of its lower initial velocity. As Steve points out, if you drop a light arrow and a heavy arrow at the same instant both will fall to the ground at the exact same instant. This, however, is not our situation. Fired from the same bow a heavier arrow will absorb more of the bow’s stored energy but, because if its higher mass, it will depart at a lower velocity. On the opposite side of this equation, all else being equal with the two arrow’s external dimensions, the heavier arrow retains more of its velocity and momentum as it travels downrange. In other words the heavier arrow retains what velocity it does have longer than does the lighter arrow (the rate of velocity loss is less for the heavier arrow) and it sheds its Momentum more slowly than does the light arrow.

As far as at what range the arrow will still be effective, that’s a function of the arrow design and the arrow’s Momentum at impact. The design point should be self-evident. Because the mass (weight) of the arrow does not diminish the contribution that the arrow’s mass makes to the arrow’s Momentum is more important than the contribution the arrow’s velocity makes to the arrow’s Momentum. In other words, at an equal level of Momentum the heavier arrow will generate a longer Moment of Force; at impact it will ‘push forward’ longer than would the lighter arrow. Thus, with all else equal in arrow design, the heavier arrow would be ‘more lethal’ than the lighter arrow. If the velocity difference is significant the lighter arrow may travel farther, but at any range the heavier arrow is capable of reaching it will impact with more force than the lighter arrow can deliver at that range. (I must remind here that, by definition, Momentum is the measure of ‘force’; Kinetic Energy measures the energy of a body in motion, but not its forward ‘thrust’.)

Let it just be said that a well designed heavy arrow is lethal against soft targets to the full range of their flight. As for hunting effectiveness as a function of the arrow’s weight and velocity I’ll refer you to the article, Papua New Guinea’s Bows and Arrows (here’s the link: https://www.tradbow.com/members/310.cfm). Look carefully at the chart showing the weight and FOC of the heaviest arrow in the ‘contemporary arrows’ chart. Now look at the photo of my friend with his Rusa deer shot on the open floodplains. The arrows shown in the ‘contemporary arrow’s’ chart represents all the big game arrows he has. That Rusa deer was shot at a bit over 25 yards. The arrow he chose for his first (and only) shot was the heaviest one in his selection. It weighs 3953 grains, with a FOC of 42.6%. When I asked him why he chose that arrow his reply was, “It works best”. I’m sure the velocity was well below 100 fps. It worked very well indeed! Kinda makes me wonder when I hear folks say a 700, 800 or 900 grain arrow is “too heavy to hunt with”.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Effective Range/Max effective range #57092

Well, that’s not exactly what I said, Troy. I did say that the arrow continues to absorb more of the bow’s energy as the arrow gets heavier. At least up to 4000 grains or so. A chronograph proves that. As the arrow weight increases at some point there is a marked decrease in the RATE of energy gain. A chronograph will show you where this point is for a given bow. This is the point of peak efficiency for arrow force from that given bow.

In the testing I did I found that for most self-wood bows the point where this abrupt decrease in the rate of gain in arrow energy is right around 10 grains of arrow weight per pound of bow draw force. I suspect that this was the origin of the “10 grains of arrow weight per pound of the bow’s draw force” axiom comes from. Not that they had chronographs back then, but they just noticed that they were not getting much gain in arrow force above that ratio. With the high-tech hybrid bows I find the point where the abrupt decrease in the rate of arrow energy gain occurs at 15 to 16 grains per pound of draw force. The arrow continues to gain arrow force from the bow as arrow weight is increased beyond this point, but the RATE of energy gain decreases.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: New heavyweight Tuffhead is here #56732

Here’s just a bit of Forgewood background, for those too young to remember the Forgewood shafts.

The Forgewood, originally made with compressed cedar by Bill Sweetland, was the first ‘modern’, parallel arrow shaft to be produced with a built-in weight forward of center design. The Forgewoods were “progressively compressed”. They started with a square cross-section, tapering blank, which was then compressed into a parallel-sided blank, which was then turned to a 5/16″ diameter shaft. The result was a wood shaft that was compressed at a 3 to 1 ratio on one end and a 1.6 ratio on the other. Thus the heavier, more compressed forward end of the shaft was significantly heavier than the rear section. Simply adding a heavy point, such as the 190 Grizzly, brought this wood arrow into the EFOC range.

For many years the Forgewood was my favorite arrow shaft and, though I’ve not added them up, I first started using Forgewoods in the early 60’s and it is highly probable that I’ve killed more big game with that arrow shaft than any other. I still have a few of those original Sweetland Forgewoods, as well as a few dozen of the newer version which, as Dave notes, were made from different woods. Those newer Forgewoods I have are from Mountain Hemlock. As an aside, those newer Forgewood shaft have slightly less ‘built in FOC’ than do the original, compressed cedar Forgewoods.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Coues kill — arrow set-up #55850

Congratulations Dave. That’s a great Coues deer. Sounds like you found one of those non-existent heavy bones in a deer’s body. Lots of folks maintain you don’t need an arrow designed to penetrate heavy bone when hunting “light big game”, because they don’t have any heavy bones.

You must have hit the spine fairly solidly to drop him in his tracks. Did you examine the vertebra to see if it was fractured? From what you describe I suspect it might have been. A glancing blow on the spine with no more force than an arrow carries, likely would not have dropped him in his tracks, particularly if the impact was not at a right angle to the spine. Or, perhaps, I’m misinterpreting your description and the shot was fully broadside.

Regardless of the shot angle, deflecting off a bone, with the arrow’s path being severely redirected, always robs you of a lot of penetration, but you clearly still had ‘enough’; and that’s precisely the reason for using a penetration enhanced arrow setup; something with far more penetration needed for those all too rare ‘perfectly placed’ shots. Half-a-shaft penetration on an arrow of that length is pretty good after hitting the spine.

That gaping entry wound that you note on your second shot occurs commonly when a single-bevel broadhead enters at an extreme angle to the surface of the tissues. It creates an elongated cut; a ‘slashing wound’, if you prefer; which is opened wide the other direction because of the broadhead’s rotation. You won’t often see this type of cut unless your single-bevel broadhead is truly sharp.

You did a pretty good job of hiding the blood in the photos, but the amount of blood still visible on his nose and chest, as well as on the grass, give a pretty good indication of what it was like. The huge amount of internal bleeding you have been noting; the ‘flooding” of the thorax with blood; is a routine feature of a thorax hit with a truly sharp single-bevel broadhead. Just as with the large, gaping entry wound, you won’t see that massive hemorrhaging unless you have that broadhead truly sharp. When those single-bevel heads are really sharp there’s often a large amount of blood-shot tissue along the entire arrow’s path. It’s frequently so pronounced that it truly does look, for all the world, like a high-velocity gun shot wound.

One gets the bone splits even when the broadhead is less than truly sharp, so lots of folks have noted them, but not as many folks have noted the massive soft tissue damage. I’ve been trying to tell folks for a long, long time about the advantages of the single-bevel BH’s in soft tissues – when the broadhead is truly sharp. The soft tissue damage they cause really does have to be seen before one can appreciate that a broadhead, of any type, can cause it.

Unfortunately there are a lot of bowhunters who have used single-bevels that were not truly sharp, and they (truthfully) are quick to say they don’t see much difference in either the soft tissue damage or hemorrhaging between them and a double-bevel broadhead.

I’ve had tons of folks ask me what I considered to be a truly sharp broadhead. In the past I was sometimes fortunate enough to have one at hand to show them, but usually I didn’t. Nowadays it is easier. When anyone ask me what a truly sharp broadhead is I just tell them to get one from Ron (AKA Sharpster) and check it out. That’s what a truly sharp broadhead is.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: I think more point weight will help #27733

Troy, just build a new bow like the one below, get some rebar to hammer out into a point and some 1″ diameter, 5 foot long bamboo for a shaft. It will make getting your 40%+ FOc arrow easy, and easy to tune. The bow is about 4″ wide at the grip, with no shelf. You won’t need any fletching to reduce you finished FOC. Works for them!

p.s. You’ll have a tapered shaft too!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ferals? #25167

Moreton, with the exception of pigs we consider most of the introduced animals as ‘exotics’, not ferals. Folks pay big dollars to hunt them, so they have been turned into an economic asset rather than a ‘pest’. Texas has exotic game from all over the world; far too many species to list, but you can Google ‘Texas Exotic Game Animals’ to get an idea of what’s available. Most are on large acerage, high-fenced ranches, but many species have escaped and are free ranging in parts of Texas; sometimes in large numbers.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: screw on tuffheads #21782

Just to toss in my 2 cents worth, all things considered the glue-on broadhead system offers far more versatility than a screw-in BH, and either must be solidly secured to the insert/adaptor to be structurally sound. The number one, most important requirement in a hunting arrow is total structural integrity. It won’t matter how good your arrow flys, what broadhead you’re using, how sharp your broadhead is or how much your arrow weights if any portion of the arrow system breaks on impact with any of the entrance-side tissues it encounters on a given hit. Test results from freshly-downed animals; where arrow damage can’t be attributed to animal movement; shows that structural failure somewhere in the arrow system is far more common than most folks think.

If a screw-in BH is used on ‘serious hunting arrows’ it should be firmly secured to the insert using LockTite, or a similar product. If the screw-in broadhead is even slightly loose it becomes a markedly weak point in the arrow-system. Of course the same applies to a screw-in broadhead adaptor, and it should be similarly secured on those ‘serious hunting arrows’.

With all synthetic shafts, the strongest broadhead-to-shaft system is with a glue-on broadhead attached to a one-piece steel insert/broadhead adaptor, such as those from Traditional Archery Solutions. For anyone interested here’s a link: http://traditionalarcherysolutions.bubbaspc.com/traditionalarcherysolutions/about_us.asp. When either a screw-in BH or a glue-on BH is used with an aluminum insert and/or broadhead adaptor the aluminum component automatically becomes the weakest link in the broadhead-to-shaft attachment.

Bottom line is that, for your ‘serious hunting arrows’ either system can be made structurally secure, but doing so requires securing every component into a single, non-movable unit. Once that’s done there’s really no inherent advantage to having a screw-in broadhead.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Whats you FOC? #53512

Troy Breeding wrote: Totally amazing to see an arrow of that weight fly so flat …

Just wanted to be sure folks don’t miss that statement. I’ve been a bit reluctant to stress to folks the difference there is trajectory BETWEEN ARROWS OF EQUAL WEIGHT when one arrow is in the upper EFOC or UEFOC range and the other has Normal or High FOC. It almost has to be experienced to be believed, and is primarily a result of the rapid paradox recovery of the EFOC/UEFOC arrows, which conserves arrow energy.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A long look at fletching and EFOC #49402

Just bring this to the top for someone who enquired about the turbulator and A&A pattern.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Now here's something we all truly need #49377

Why not just wait for the heat-seeking version, which will surely soon follow? That way it won’t matter if your aim is very good or if the animal moves after the shot. All you’ll need to do is get the arrow aimed in the general vicinity of the game. 🙄 Oh, and fishing with dynamite requires a lot less skill than using a hook too. 😯 After all, who wants to waste any of their valuable time trying to learn the skills necessary to actually hunt or fish. 🙁

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Water!! #46413

roninrus1 wrote: Hard to beat a CamelBack. No noise! Love mine.

I used the CamelBack some in the outback of Australia and I concur. For a day’s hunt, where you’ll be back at camp by nightfall (or soon after) it’s the best way I found to carry enough water in really hot, dry country.

A bit over 35 years ago, when I lived in Tucson, well before season started I would back-pack well-sealed gallon jugs of water into my hunt area, bury them at strategic locations and mark their location on my map.

Ed

[Author]

Posts