[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Internal Footings #27187

Someone contacted me to ask why their Internal Footings rattled in flight and when tapped on a hard surface. Here’s my reply, in case anyone else encounters the same problem.

A couple of things will cause this to occur.

(1) If the IFR isn’t concentric and axially straight it will rest against one side of the shaft, rather than having the tapering section centered in the shaft. This causes uneven oscillation, and a rattle in flight, and when tapped on a firm surface.

(2) The other thing that can cause such a rattle is the shape (profile) of the tapered section of the IF. The correct taper is a long, slowly increasing parabolic curve. Along most of the tapering section the clearance between IF and shaft’s inner wall is very slight, and increases only at a very, very gradual rate. As the curve approaches the last (approximately) inch or so of the taper the rate of increase in gap size between the IF and the shaft’s inner wall speeds up a bit. Even with this speeded up rate of curvature at the taper’s trailing section, the clearance between the rearward end of the IF and the shaft’s inner wall (on each side) will only be about 1/4 the shaft’s inside diameter. (Or, you could say the very back end of the IF has a diameter equaling about 1/2 the shaft’s inside diameter.) Of course, since the back end is a curved surface I don’t mean a measurement to the very center of the IF’s curved rear end but, rather, the measurement a millimeter or so in front of that.

Keep the IF as linearly straight and concentric as you can. The IF’s profile is initially parallel, then it begins tapering very, very gradually, then a somewhat faster parabolic taper near the very back end.

I know that’s not an easy to understand explanation but I hope it helps you a bit.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #26725

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

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Too old to hunt? #26715

My body’s beat, battered and totally derelict:cry:, but I intent to keep TRYING to hunt in one fashion or another … UNTIL I’M A “SHOVEL READY PROJECT”!:shock:

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: How do you get these amazing hunts #26167

By good fortune, a willingness to take some risk, a willingness to give up a lot of other things that most folks consider essential to their life and – first and foremost – the grace of God.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Kicking the New Year off Right #26161

Bounty Hunter wrote: I do hope you get better very soon and get back out in the field!

That’s the plan!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #24827

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

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Kicking the New Year off Right #24822

Sounds like a serious hunting arrow setup to me, Derek. I hope you get to try it on one of those 500 pounders soon.

After 2 1/2 years of surgeries, treatments, test and procedures, right now I’d be tickled pink just to shoot a hog the size of the one you have above! Soon, I hope.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #24732

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

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #24676

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

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #24602

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

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #24506

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

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Kicking the New Year off Right #24489

Now that’s the way to start your year off, Derek!

Dave, those Javies are fair eating, but a young porker is near the top of my preferences for good eat’n!

Very nice job Derek!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #24482

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

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #24456

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

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #23995

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

[Author]

Posts