[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #23988

kingwouldbee wrote: … this is where I want more than I need.

Overkill is grossly underrated.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #23984

MontanaFord wrote: If you look at it, you can see that the shoulder blade is actually quite high on the deer. Basically clear up against the spine. Who’s going to shoot that high on purpose anyway? So by aiming farther forward than the crease behind the shoulder, WHY NOT aim farther forward and put your point of aim closer to the center of the vital mass?

MF, you have the concept exactly correct. When I refer to ‘shooting at the shoulder’ that’s what I’m talking about. There’s nothing over the ribs but skin, connective tissue and meat, and that aiming point gives you the maximum amount of room for error.

Another advantage is that, should the animal jump at the shot it will likely jump forward (they rarely jump backwards 😆 though I did have one impala ram turn a complete backflip when he heard the shot :shock:. Aiming on the shoulder moves your aiming point farther from a potential ‘gut hit’.

If they react at all, most animals tend to ‘dip’ or ‘duck’ before they start their forward jump, or before they start to ‘turn’ or ‘spin’. I try to aim low on the shoulder to alow for some degree of ‘dip’. If, rather than jumping forward, the animal spins or turns the ‘on the shoulder’ aim also keeps the arrow’s path directed through the thorax for a longer period than does a ‘back of the shoulder’ aim. That applies regardless of whether the animal spins to its right or its left. Think about it. Picture how the animal’s body rotates as the animal turns, then picture that in relation to the path of an arrow that was aimed both back of the shoulder and on the shoulder. Little things, but they sometimes make all the difference between a thorax and/or liver hit and a gut hit.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #23960

Jason, since, as you rightly pointed out, the .22 LR to .375 H&H analogy had a great disparity in force levels, the two 300 grain bullets from the .375 H&H analogy was just to make it an apple to apple analogy. In this second analogy the bullets are of equal size and force, but differ in construction. The same ‘shot selection’ logic for the two bullets applies equally well to arrows of differing construction, and should not be dismissed out of hand without an explanation of why it does not apply equally well to both.

From your prior post it sounds like you (as well as all your hunting mates) have incredible success on whitetails with the arrow setup(s) you currently use. I’m curious as to exactly what your usual arrow setup is, and the bow you use?

From your comments it also sounds like everyone in your group takes only those shots they are certain will result in a well placed hit. Can I then infer that no one in your hunting group has ever hit and failed to recover a deer? Is that correct? If it is not correct, what do you think caused the failure to make a clean kill in those instances where the animal was hit and not recovered? I’m just asking for your opinion of why there was a failure, as no one can know with certainty unless they have the opportunity to examine the failed hit to determine precisely what went wrong; why it failed to be lethal.

The beauty of doing testing on freshly downed animals is that you get to see the failed shots and determine exactly why they failed to yield a lethal hit. One learns nothing from the successful shots. It’s only when a shot fails that we have the opportunity to determine the cause of the failure. Knowing the cause of the failure permits us to try to find ways to improve our arrow setup to diminish or prevent such a failure from recurring.

I’m also curious if you have ever shot an animal with a well-tuned, EFOC or Ultra-EFOC arrow having a mass weight above the heavy bone threshold and tipped with a truly sharp, high MA single bevel broadhead; even if it was just a test shot on a recently downed animal. If so, what was the shot outcome?

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Another volunteer for the Ashby study #23920

kingwouldbee wrote: The thing that I love about high efoc and the high MA of the El Grandy is, I have way more options of shot angle than with any other broadhead I have found. … I always shoot for the vitals, however I am not opposed to taking the long-way to get there, provided my set up is capable of reaching them with out fail.

I hope everyone keys in on that “providing my setup is capable of reaching them with out fail”. That’s the key, knowing with certainty what the capabilities of you and your equipment is. The ability to reach and penetrate through the vital organs from as many shot angles as possible is a very important feature for us bowhunters who stalk, rather than stand hunt. While it can’t be applied on the super size animals it can be used with deadly certainty and effectiveness on smaller big game. It all comes down to knowing what you and your setup are capable of, and then staying within those parameters.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Another volunteer for the Ashby study #23480

King, I’m really looking forward to some more results with the 4 blades. Already know they handle bone far better than any of the 3 blade heads, and not nearly as well as the best profile 2 blade heads but we don’t have nearly enough information on how they stack up against bones of the large pig size animals, relative to such BH’s as the wide cut single blades. There’s also scant data on how they will perform at very high EFOC/Ultra-EFOC.

Find more volunteers! Get more answers!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #23398

JRW wrote: Ed,

J.Wesbrock here.

I’ll defer on the rifle analogies, since I’m no firearms expert. Although, I’d be hard pressed to imagine two bowhunting setups for big game that differ as greatly as a 22LR and a 375 H&H. Doesn’t the latter produce over a hundred times more energy than the former?

Anyway, back to bowhunting. I agree that examining ways to reduce wounding losses is a good thing. But if we go around telling people that with such-n-such setup it’s perfectly OK to try shooting big game up the butt or through the shoulder blades, I think we’ve pretty much lost our credibility on the subject.

Jason, in the elephant analogy perhaps I should have used a comparison between a 300 grain conventional expanding bullet and a 300 grain solid, both from the .375 H&H. Most conventional 300 grain expanding bullets (“soft points”) will perform well enough to kill and elephant on a broadside, or a very, very slightly quartering chest shot, but some even fail there, breaking up if one of the heavy ribs is hit. Soft points won’t penetrate enough for a brain shot or a quartering shot, and end-to-end “raking shots” are impossible for them. They can’t be relied upon to penetrate the scapula or break the leg bones. The 300 gr. solid works from any angle; can penetrate any bone in the elephant’s body, can rake an elephant end-to-end and is capable of penetrating completely through the skull, with exit! Both have the same and energy and momentum. The difference is in the construction of the projectile. One can be used to do everything the other can, and a lot the other can’t. There’s a reason that solid bullets are the first choice of many of the African professional hunters, for everything they shoot.

Should the criteria for a ‘well placed shot’ be the same for all 300 grain bullets from a .375? That’s the same logic you are applying to arrows. Not all arrows are created equal. Study data indicates that one can MORE than triple the penetration of a well-tuned, ‘typical’ arrow setup of equal arrow mass, even if a heavy bone is hit. And that’s giving the ‘typical’ the advantage of using a BH with a MA in the 1.4+ range; well above the majority of broadheads in use today. That MA takes in the Woodsman and similar broadheads and many of the wider-cut single blade broadheads. In excess of three times the penetration potential but no difference in acceptable shot criteria?

I do not advocate folks taking anything short of shots they feel certain they, AND THEIR EQUIPMENT, are capable of making. I DO encourage them to take every opportunity they have to do some test shots into freshly downed animals, from adverse angle and impacts, to determine exactly what the equipment they are using is capable of. If their equipment will consistently penetrate the shoulder bones of the size game they are hunting then they can aim ‘on the shoulder, with confidence that, should they hit a heavy bone by accident, their arrow will penetrate through it and into the thorax.

Some folks seem to have great difficulty accepting that there are arrow setups which CAN reliably and consistently penetrate through heavy bone. Those arrows do exist. If one chooses not to use them that is perfectly okay, so long as they know, hunt and shoot within the limits of their ability and their equipment’s capability. But the exact same ‘acceptable shot criteria’ applies to those who use arrows that they have personally tested and that have proven to be capable of consistently and reliably providing greater penetrating ability and/or the bone breaking ability; they must know, hunt and shoot within the limits of their ability and their equipment’s capability. What is a ‘well place shot’ for one setup is not necessarily a ‘well placed shot’ with another.

Know the capability of yourself and your equipment and take only those shots you know are well within those capabilities … but never intentionally push those shots to the limit of your equipment’s capability. Always … ALWAYS … try for the best, but it’s best to ALWAYS, to the very maximum of your ability, plan for the worst that MIGHT happen.

“King” is about as good an example as I know of. He’s developed and thoroughly tested the arrow setups he’s uning and he well knows its capabilities (as well as his own) and he judiciously applies those capabilities with resounding success.

In bowhunting there is no such thing as ‘too much’. Overkill is vastly underrated. When s— happens, and sooner or later it will, “overkill” sure trumps “enough, as long as you do your part and put it in the right place”.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #20001

[quote=Dr. Ed Ashby]

Where is the downside to shooting the arrow most likely give a successful outcome on the greatest number of hits THAT MIGHT occur? Should we not be taking every step we can to reduce the wound/loss rate, not just concentrating on only one aspect? Considering that even the best, most skillful, most well intentioned and ethical of hunters make bad hits why not do all we can to convert as many of those bad hits into the quickest, cleanest and most humane kill possible?

I concur that no one should take a shot at unwounded game unless they FEEL certain that the shot will be well placed, but FEELING CERTAIN of the shot does not equate to BEING CERTAIN that the shot will be well placed. Things happen; things beyond the control of the hunter. I have met bowhunters who claim they have never made a bad hit, but I’ve never guided or hunted with one who’s never made a bad hit.

One’s personal idea of what constitutes a well placed shot may differ from that of others. What is well placed for one setup may well be poorly placed with another. It’s like the difference between a well placed shot when using a .22 long rifle’s little 40 grain bullet and being well placed when using a .375 H&H with a 300 grain solid. One will smash shoulders or hips and still rake an elephant end to end on a quartering shot and the other will only penetrate an elephant when placed in the thin skin under the front leg. And, yes, elephant have been killed with both, but there’s a huge difference between the two cartridges when it comes to what constitutes a well placed hit.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #19555

I sometimes hear bowhunters who claim to only take shoots where they are CERTAIN that they will get a near perfect hit … but I’ve never personally seen a single one do so in action.

Jason, I could and should have worded that statement better, but you are misinterpreting the meaning. I don’t care how good a shot one is, or how hard one tries, no one – NO ONE – can be CERTAIN that their shot will end up as a near perfect hit. It simply is not possible. There are too many things over which the hunter has no control that can go wrong. That doesn’t not mean one should not always TRY to make a perfect shot, but it is unrealistic to expect that every shot is going to end up perfectly placed, just because we ‘feel certain’ of the shot; and it would be dishonest to claim it possible.

Effective shots and shot placement will always be a subject of dispute among hunters. Take that hip shot you mention. It was one of Fred Bear’s favorite shots. Fred claimed it was faster and a more certain killing shot than was one into the thorax. Other than during the Natal Study, where we were instructed to shoot each animal by taking whatever shot angle was presented (because lethality of various shot placements was one of the things being investigated, and we were backed with rifles, if needed), the hip shot is not one I’ve ever intentionally tried for, but it is one I have ended up with a few times. I must say I have been impressed with the rapidity of the kill on each of those unintentional hip hits. The original Natal Study has an interesting section on the success rate by shot angle for the bowhunted animals in the Study.

https://www.tradbow.com/members/243.cfm

Just as for all other shot angles there were conditions which affected the lethality of the hip hit. These included (1) the degree of penetration obtained, (2) whether the hit was medial or lateral to the femur or, (3) if the femur was hit whether or not the arrow was capable of penetrating/fracturing the femur and carrying on to reach the femoral and/or iliac arteries.

I’ve found that many bowhunters who hunt only deer, and especially if they use arrows having a lesser penetration potential, tend to concentrate their shot angles from either broadside or quartering from the rear. When their ‘ideal shot’ is accurately placed the impact will be well back of the shoulder’s center of mass. With such an arrow setup, and when shooting animals structured such as deer are, this is the appropriate approach to take. The thing I don’t like about this approach is that, when shots go wrong, it frequently results in hits that are too far back – a gut hit. Such a shot placement can/should not be used for many other species of large game; notably all members of the (true) antelope family where the vital organs of the thorax are located between the shoulders, and do not extend reward of the shoulder.

On all species of big game I prefer to aim low ‘on the shoulder’. That DOES NOT MEAN ‘ON THE SCAPULA’. The low placed, center shoulder shot hits only skin, meat and connective tissues prior to reaching the level of the ribs. From broadside, even with a deer, aiming for a low center shoulder shot places the arrow near the lung’s center of mass, giving more room for error and reducing the likelihood of hitting too far back. The down side is that such an aiming point is closer to the shoulder bones. Should those bones be hit one needs to be using an arrow capable of reliably penetrating the bones and carrying on too traverse the thorax. The factors in design of a hunting arrow that affect the arrows ability to relaibly acomplish this task is what I’ve devoted a quarter cnetury of testing, and a few hundred thousand dollars, into defining. I’m not saying that everyone has to use such an arrow. I admire the ‘primitive’ bowhunters far too much for that. What I will say is that each of the defined factors one incorporates into the setup of their hunting arrow will improve the arrow’s terminal effectiveness in tissues.

If we turn a blind eye to people taking shots they are less than certain of making, or intentionally shooting deer through the pelvis, shoulder blades, or neck, do we really have a leg to stand on when we talk about trying to reduce game losses?

Regardless of who they are, EVERY shot a bowhunter takes at a game animal is one they are less than certain of making. There is the potential for things to go awry on each and every shot. That’s why it is advantageous to use an arrow setup that gives the highest likelihood of yielding a successful hit on the greatest number of the potential hits that MIGHT occur. I think that there are not many bowhunters who intentionally shoot for the neck, pelvis or scapula, but there certainly is one heck of a lot of folks who end up hitting there! Is it a lack of shooting skill; accuracy? In most all of the instances I’ve personally seen it wasn’t. It was generally a lack of hunting skills, not shooting skills.

And when people do take these shots, get lucky and kill their animal, should we really pat them on the back and tout their results as a “success story?”

What about when one’s well intended shot ends up unintentionally hitting a hip, neck vertebra, spine or scapula, but because he’s chosen to use an arrow setup that will, with an extremely high degree of probability, work, and he makes a clean, humane kill? When that setup performs the ‘fail safe’ function it was designed to do should we not herald as a success story the recovery of what would otherwise be likely to end up as a wounded or lost animal?

I fully concur that we need to stress the personal ethics of only taking shots we feel are within both the capability of ourselves and the equipment we choose to use, but regardless of how hard any of us try there will always be less than perfect hits on game. Where is the downside to shooting the arrow most likely give a successful outcome on the greatest number of hits THAT MIGHT occur? Should we not be taking every step we can to reduce the wound/loss rate, not just concentrating on only one aspect? Considering that even the best, most skillful, most well intentioned and ethical of hunters make bad hits why not do all we can to convert as many of those bad hits into the quickest, cleanest and most humane kill possible?

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #18956

J.Wesbrock wrote: … it’s an unfortunate and sad reality that too many people take a “poke and hope” mentality to shooting game. … There’s a huge difference between making a bad shot and taking one — the first is excusable, the second is not. … Instead of expecting our equipment to bail us out of stupid decisions, maybe we should stop making those decisions in the first place.

I couldn’t agree more with you about folks taking a “poke and hope” shot. That results from desperation to ‘make a kill’. We no longer hunt for survival, and we have no justification, EVER, for taking a ‘desperation shot’ at unwounded game. But, as you say, no matter how hard one tries bad shots do sometimes happen, and our decision making is not the cause of these. It is on the unavoidable bad shot where the arrow we chose to use can often make a difference.

Voodoo wrote: … I really wish that more would or could put more time into perfecting their woodsmanship skills, but I’m afraid that the being the woodsman of old is out of most archers grasp these days … to make up for that loss of skills, we have come to rely on our equipment more … all I’m saying is that in accepting this modern form of “primitive” archery, we need to hone the skills that have become our standard method

I wish more bowhunters would devote a bit of the time they currently spend at target practice to development of basic hunting skills. For most, their shooting skill FAR exceeds their hunting/tracking/stalking/bushcraft skills. When one can get close to game it does not require any great degree of shooting skill to comfortably and consistently make killing shots. Basic hunting/tracking/stalking/bushcraft skills are something you’ll never hear mentioned on the Outdoor Channel. There, a new ‘wonder product’ is all required to make you a successful hunter.

The development of pretty fair woodsman skill is not as for out of the reach of the average person as one would think. The problem is that most folks don’t (or won’t … and I find it hard to accept “can’t”) devote the effort to learn even the basic skills. I watched a ‘city’ LADY (yes, Cher Lacey) with absolutely NO prior bowhunting skills or experience develop into a pretty darned good tracker (and I don’t mean following a blood trail, I mean following spoor of unwounded animals), and an OUTSTANDING STALKER in a period of 2 years. She developed the skills to scout areas by following the tracks of an animal to see where it traveled and determine why it was going where it did (without getting lost), to stalk animals into near handshaking range, and to take them cleanly at a matter of feet, not yards. Along with this she learned all the basic survival skills, and even became comfortable hunting and camping ALONE in the outback in a rough bush camp (no tents, campers cook stoves, etcetera). Don’t get me wrong. She can’t track like a bushman, but she can track better than most men I’ve seen who’ve hunted for years and years. It is “doable” for most anyone, but requires one to make the effort.

Voodoo wrote: … but one thing I do not understand is… How can a person not proficient shooting an inatimate(sp) object be ok shooting a live, breathing, sometimes moving animal at the same distance?

Conversely, why do so many folks who are excellent target shots ‘muff’ easy shots with a frequency and regularity that I find astonishing, even at ranges that are well within the distance at which they can stack their arrows into a target so closely that they are virtually touching each other?

As they gain more and more experience shooting at animals most hunters become more proficient at making a killing shot on game. However, there definitely appears to be other factors at play when it comes to consistently making the shot on an animal. I feel certain that there is, without question, a factor in some folks that make them better shots, when it matters the most. Rather than becoming nervous or excited when taking a shot at game they become more focused. Everything seems to slow down and all save the hunter and the hunted fade from the mind’s foreground. For some hunters a primeval instinct seems to kick into gear. Missing the shot no longer becomes an option; deep down they KNOW they will make the shot; they KNOW they will kill. Lacking a better term, I call it “killer instinct”. These folks hold their excitement until after the kill. I think most who have hunted for years have met a least one or more of these folks. Often they exhibit no more than average shooting skill but are consistently successful hunters; ones who rarely miss and rarely muff an easy shot.

I cannot stand before a target very long while maintaining the level of concentration that I have when taking a shot at game. When working on a ‘target’ (which is usually stump shooting, or roving) I don’t even practice for a ‘group’. If fact, except when doing arrow tuning or practicing ‘shooting the wand’ at very long ranges, I rarely use a ‘target’, preferring to simply pick a random spot to ‘aim’ for. I do this practice in ‘groups of one’, changing something between every shot. It might be the position of my feet, the cant of my bow, the distance or angle of the shot, the speed of my draw and release, how long I hold at full draw before release or some other shot feature. On each shot I make a judgment as to whether the shot was ‘close enough to kill’ (well within the size of the kill zone on a big game animal) or not. If the shot is not what I consider ‘close enough to kill’ I don’t immediately repeat it. I’ll wait until later before trying that same shot again. There are few second chances to make an identical shot at an animal. When practicing I do, frequently, take shots that are well beyond my comfort zone; something I will not do with game.

In shooting game I try to keep all shots within my ‘kill zone’. That zone [Bold]DOES NOT[/Bold] extend to as great a distance as where I can keep all arrows ‘close enough to kill’ WHEN REPEATEDLY SHOOTING ARROWS FROM THE SAME DISTANCE AND POSITION. My hunting shot kill zone encompasses that zone of ranges at which, when practicing as described above, I rarely make a shot that falls outside of ‘close enough to kill’, regardless of how and from what shooting position I have to take the shot. (I’m basically a stalker, and few of my shots allow me to strike a ‘target stance’.)

Using my ‘kill zone’ as my guide I avoid taking shots outside that distance. When one confines their hunting shots to within their ‘kill zone’ they make a very high percentage of their shots. That, in turn, develops a level of confidence in one’s ability to make the shot when it matters. I know that I’m not surprised when I miss at a target, but I’m highly surprised when I fail to make a shot on a game animal.

Tom-Wisconsin wrote: I think that among people who hunt in a primitive culture they assume everyone in their group are excellent shots but also excellent trackers. We modern men are primitive when it comes to tracking compared to those experts. I wonder that when hunting as a group they continue to shoot multiple arrows from different members to continue to wound the animal until a kill shot happens or they bleed from multiple wounds. A group hunt of a primitive culture is a completely different ball game. Everyone would share in the meat. Their ability to track a wounded animal was probably very great and they would hunt a large animal for days if necessary to finally bring it down. At least that is my understanding. Please feel free to correct me about these impressions. Tom

Tom, not all primitive cultures use the ‘group hunt’ method. The Bushmen do, and they shoot as a group. Despite that, Lee, et al, found that, among young hunters, age 15 to 38, 70% of the kills were made by just 17% of the hunters. This is the same group of hunters among which the ‘shooting accuracy’ testing was conducted, with the 17% group of ‘most successful hunters’ showing the poorest degree of target accuracy. Perhaps this reflects that “killer instinct” among some hunters. The researchers speculated that these ‘most successful hunters’ developed superior hunting skills BECAUSE they were the poorer shots. Their poor shooting ability meant they needed superior hunting ability to get animals within their effective range.

The natives in PNG tend to hunt in a group of three, but solo hunters are not at all uncommon. Their main reason for hunting in groups of three appears to be to make carrying the animal back an easier chore; two carry while one rest, rotating the task at regular intervals. When hunting as a group only one person does the final stalk, and shoots alone. Unlike the Bushmen, who track up their game, the PNG natives tend to hunt the open plains by spot-and-stalk, and they hunt the denser areas by ambush, often from elevated platforms in trees.

Tom-Wisconsin wrote: I feel we are bound to only shoot within are abilities to get in the kill zone so we can bring it down quickly. We also need patience and judgement and wisdom to not shoot unless we feel very confident. The reason I hunt is to connect with nature. If I do not get an animal that is ok. If some people give in to the need to get an animal they may not use good judgement when taking a shot. We all need to emphasize this to others. Hunting should not be about competition but about experience. IMHO Tom

It can’t be said any better Tom.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #18392

sapcut wrote: Here is the book mentioned. Holy pricey book Batman.

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Tracking-Origin-Science/dp/0864861311

Holy b– s—, Batman! I think they were about $12 or $15 when I bought my copy!

Ed

p.s. More I need to answer above, but it’s after midnight. Later.

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Needless to say, the arrow did not penetrate #17803

J-Dog, those Georgia whitetails surely must be tougher than the ‘butter soft’ whitetails found elsewhere. I had a couple of Georgia meat processers saving the broadheads they found in rifle-killed deer they processed. Most were brought to me still stuck into the bones. Tough, those massive, armor plated Georgia whitetails! LOL

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #17796

Voodoo wrote: ……. you can’t kill what you can’t hit..

Absolutely correct, but being the most accurate shooter on a stationary target also does not equate to being a good shot on game. Among those bowhunters I guided in Africa some of the worst shooting on game was done by those who shot the most accurately on targets. Of course some of that has to do with the fact that, unlike a target butt, animals can move before the arrow arrives but much more has to do with the hunter’s mindset and hunting skills, abilities and experience. Knowing one’s limitations and taking shots only within the hunter’s ‘zone’ and knowing how to time the shot; knowing when it’s time to shoot; are huge factors in a hunters success on game.

I sometimes hear bowhunters who claim to only take shoots where they are CERTAIN that they will get a near perfect hit … but I’ve never personally seen a single one do so in action.

Proficiency is important, but hunting skills and use of equipment that helps compensate when the shot is less than perfect count more than the ability to stack one arrow on top of the other when standing at a target. Many of the so called ‘primitive hunters’ I’ve seen in action are more than proof of that, as was the case in the research conducted by anthropologist (Lee, et al, 1979) among the Ja/wasi and !Xo bushman tribes and the Hadza hunters of Tanzania (see The Art of Tracking: the Origin of Science, by Louis Lienbenberg). When tested, they found that shooting accuracy did not equate with being among the most consistently successful hunters. In fact the very best, most consistently successful of the hunters proved to be among the least accurate when shooting at a target! When these, arguably most successful and skilled of all hunters were asked to list what skills that they considered most important in order for a hunter to be successful, shooting skill did not apper a single time among the answers given by any of those questioned. Every skill they listed revolved around mental abilities. The ‘hunting skill’ they listed as most important? “Cleverness”; the ability to outsmart the animal.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: December 24th, 1958 #16150

J – You got that spot on! I’ve been an Old Derelict Bowhunter for a good while now … just getting older and more derelict every year. There was a time when my best hunting tools were strength, stamina and shooting skill, but now it’s just age, treachery and deceit; just fooling the animals into giving up!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Is this enough to kill a buffalo? #12050

Good to hear from you Galen. My preference would be for the heavier El Grande. The lighter (slightly thinner) one bends occassionally, but no more frequently than does the Magnus I. I’ve never bent one of the bigger, thicker El Grandies on any tissues, but have broken a couple on rocks and snapped the tip on a couple trying to get them back out of a heavy bone.

You have a Merry Christmas and a very happy New Year! Go get that Bison!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Is this enough to kill a buffalo? #11563

wTk wrote: I have been asked to shoot a buffalo for a friend. They are planning to butcher it and in the past they have had trouble with the police for shooting a gun to put them down. The pens are at the edge of the city limits so they wanted to know if I would use my bow to kill it. I know this isn’t a hunt but before accepting their offer I want to be sure I can make a clean kill. I’d be using 28 1/2″ carbons with a 200 gr internal footing and a 150 gr magnus 1 with a 100 gr steel insert. This gives me a FOC of over 30% and an arrow weight of 675gr. I’d be shooting that out of my 55# longbow. So do you think that is an acceptable setup.

wTk,
If your arrow flight is well tuned and the broadhead truly sharp you are good to go! I’d recommend you ‘Tanto tip’ the Magnus I. The factory profile ‘needle tip’ bends pretty easily; should you hit a rib dead center or with a glancing impact. Bison (as opposed to true buffalo) have ‘open ribs’ (spaces between the ribs), and the ribs do not overlap as they do in members of the true buffalo family, and the ribs themselves are significantly thinner than those of an Asian or Cape buffalo.

Looking forward to hearing how well your setup performs on bison!

Ed

[Author]

Posts