[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Whitetail leg bone impact #10565

It’s great to see the photos. The bone breaks shown are pretty typical of what happends on a long bone. Note the depth of BH penetration into the bone before the rotational torque caused the bone to split; the tip just barely through.

There have been some color changes on the broadheads of differing weight through the years. The heaviest El Grande version has always been black. That’s definitely not one on the new heads. It’s hard to judge the length of the BH, but it is either the 160 gr or the ‘El Grande size’ 150 grain model. The reported slight tip bend makes me lean towards it being the 150 grain version of the El Grande, although I did bend the tip on two of the old model 160 grain heads – on buffalo ribs. Jason stated that it’s the 150 Grain version of the El Grande, so I think he spot on with the BH identification.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #10544

Well, it’s taken a while but I’m finally where I can devote some time back on line, at least for a few days. If all goes well I’ll be traveling for a bit after 6 January, but will try to check in whenever there is an opportunity. For now I have to catch up on all the postings here.

The down time has permitted me to do some more work on the 2008 testing information, and the Part 6 Update should be posted soon. How much penetration do you gain for every 1 percent increase in EFOC/Ultra-EFOC? If arrow FOC is increased how much can arrow weight be decreased without a loss in the amount of penetration? The 2008, Part 6 Update has what the Study data indicates.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #55149

Here’s another post I found. It’s accompanied by a photo of an average size buck. I’ve condensed and consolidated the post a bit but the words are a direct quote.

this is obviously enough, however, I prefer an exit hole … shot this buck fifteen yards away … going up a slope … body position was close to what you might have with a straight down angle … only went forty yards … saw him stumble and drop … only pierced one lung. Maybe ten inches went in … week before I shot a larger buck … broadside … hit him behind the shoulder and above the elbow … As he ran off the arrow didn’t wiggle … maybe four inches went in … never found him … traveled one mile … followed the whole bloodtrail … never recovered the arrow or part of one … blood stopped … guess that the arrow slid down along a heavy rib … shooting a 62″ Martin Hatfield 55# … draw 28″… shafts are 2016s tipped with a 125gn Wensel Woodsman … shaft, minus the broadhead, is 31.25″.

[bold] Then he does ask the right question: [/bold]

Is there anything obvious to someone that my setup could be improved upon?

[bold] So far no one has given him any suggestions. It’s on a web site that I don’t post on, but I’m waiting to see if he ever gets any suggestions.

There’s obviously a problem with the penetration he’s getting from a 55# bow. What problems do YOU see with his setup and what suggestions would YOU make as to things he could do to improve his setup? [/bold]

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #55142

David Petersen wrote: BadShotDad — right on! You said it all in very few words.

Ed — did/do you know Ann Causey? She was a Ph.D. professor of ethics at a southern university who is the One Single Person who started the entire “hunters fixing hunting” movement IMHO, and yet I failed to name her in my brief list, above. (Oldtimer’s or Happy hour disease, forgive me Ann). She was a nonhunter who on the second go-round married a hunter and combined her love and respect for him and his ethics with her academic studies and published a paper on hunting ethics, subsequently abbreviated in Bugle magazine, which started those of us who value and can handle painful/masochistic thinking and self-criticism to really thinking about ourselves and not only how we hunt, but why we hunt how we hunt. This was some 20 years ago. Then she just disappeared. Wherever you are, my endless thanks, Ann Causey!

I like that; “Hunters Fixing Hunting”. Don’t know the lady, but think I would like her very much!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #54944

[bold] In my opinion, trying to ‘hide’ wounding and loss is not even a viable option. Here are a few (not all) of the bowhunting wound-loss studies that I could locate in just 10 minutes of searching the web. Note that some of the studies look at the effect use of compounds have on the rate – virtually none. The problem ain’t with the bow selection!

Judging from the ‘shots/kill’ it looks like most folks can’t count on putting their arrow “in the right place” with any degree of regularity. If you can do that every time then it won’t ever make much difference what arrow setup you use; most any arrow setup will work.

When the game can move faster than your arrows it doesn’t matter how good a shot you are; bad hits are going to happen. Always try for the best shot, every time, but set your arrow up for the best possible outcome on as many of the less-than-perfect hits that MIGHT result. [/bold]

[bold] ARCHERY WOUNDING RATES AND SHOTS PER KILL [/bold]

Bow-Hunting References

1. Aho, R.W. 1984 “Deer Hunting Retrieval Rates.” Michigan Pittman-Robertson Report. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan. 11pp.
58% wounded

2. Anonymous. 1970 “Chincoteague Narrative Report, 1965-1970” Refuge Manager”s United States Government Memorandum to Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, Georgia. 3pp.
52% wounded, 15 shots per kill

3. Boydston, G.A. and Gore, H.G. 1987 “Archery Wounding Loss in Texas.” Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas. 16pp.
50% wounded, 21 shots per kill

4. Cada, J.D., 1988 “Preliminary Archery Survey Report.” Montana Department of Fish and Wildlife and Parks. Helena, Montana. 7pp.
51% wounded.

5 & 6. Causey, M.K., Dennamer, J.E., Logan, J. and Chapman Jr., J.I., 1978
“Bowhunting White-tailed Deer with Succinylcholine Chloride Treated Arrows.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 6(3): 142-145
50% wounded in Alabama (without succinylcholine chloride).
50% wounded in South Carolina (without succinylcholine chloride).

7. Croft, R.L. 1963. “A Survey for Georgia Bowhunters.” Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish commissioners. 17:155-163
44% wounded.

8. Downing, R.L. 1971. “Comparison of Crippling Losses of White-tailed Deer Caused by Archery, Buckshot and Shotgun Slugs.” Proceedings of the Southeastern Association of Game and Fish Commissioners. 25:77-82
50% wounded

9. Garland, L.E. 1972. “Bowhunting for Deer in Vermont: Some Characteristics of the Hunters, the Hunt, and the Harvest.” Vermont Fish and Game Department. Waterbury, Vermont. 19pp.
63% wounded

[bold] 10. Gladfelter, H.L. and Kienzler, J.M. 1983. “Effects of the Compound Bow on the Success and Crippling Rates in Iowa.” Proceedings of the Midwest Bowhunting Conference. Wisconsin Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Edited by Beattie, K.H. and Moss, B.A. pp215-219
55% wounded [/bold]

[bold] 11. Gladfelter, H.L., Kienzler, J.M. and Koehler, K.J. 1983. “Effects of Compound Bow Use on Hunter Success and Crippling Rates in Iowa.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 11(1):7-12.
49% wounded [/bold]

12. Hansen, L.P. and Olson, G.S. 1989. “Survey of Archery Hunters, 1987.” Missouri Department of Conservation. Columbia, Missouri. 17pp.
52% wounded

13. Hofacker, A. 1986. “On the Trail of Wounded Deer: The Philosophy of Waiting.” Deer and Deer Hunting 10(2):65-85, 104
56% wounded

14. Jackson, R.M. and Norton, R. 1982. “Wisconsin Bowhunter Study.” University of Wisconsin. Lacrosse, Wisconsin. 36pp.
44% wounded.

15. Langenau, Jr., E.E. and Aho, R.W. 1983. “Relative Impact of Firearms and Archery Hunting on Deer Populations.” Proceedings of the Midwest Bowhunting Conference. Wisconsin Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Edited by Beattie, K.H. and Moss, B.A. pp 97-121
55% wounded, 13 shots per kill.

16. Langenau, Jr., E.E. 1986 “Factor Associated with Hunter Retrieval of Deer Hit by Arrows and Shotguns Slugs.” Leisure Sciences 8(4):417-438
61% wounded.

17. McPhillips, K.B., Linder, R.L. and Wentz, W.A. 1985. “Nonreporting Success, and Wounding by South Dakota Deer Bowhunters–1981.” Wildlife Society Bulletin
12(4)395-398
48% wounded, 14 shots per kill.

18. Moen, A.N. 1989. “Crippling Losses.” Deer and Deer Hunting 12(6):64-70.
68% wounded.

19. Stormer, F.A., Kirkpatrick, C.M. and Hoekstra, T.W. 1979, “Hunter-Inflicted Wounding of White-tailed Deer.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 7(1):10-16
58% wounded.

[Bold] Fractions rounded to nearest whole number:
55% overall wounding rate from 19 reports (two cited by Causey et all);
17 shots per kill, average. [/bold]

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Wensel woodsman for elk #54903

David Petersen wrote: This thing is so new that I doubt Dr. Ashby has had time to check it out, but if you have Ed, whatchathink? dave p

Dave, I had one of the very first ones, for testing. It works GREAT for quick touch-ups in the field, though I still ‘finish the job’ with (at least) some brief stropping. If I have my small “surgical black” Arkansas stone along, I use a few passes on it after the sharpener, then strop briefly. Back in camp I usually use the KME knife sharpener, then strop lightly. At ‘home’ I use mechanical sharpening as much as I can, but have got to where I finish that off with a few light strokes with the KME before stropping.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #54891

My feelings exactly, Dave. If we do not learn from our mistakes we are destined to repeat them, ad infinitum. I am just dismayed by the number of post I’ve found that think we should never openly admit to having a shot fail.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: What Broadhead weight is better #54879

It’s my pleasure, Ireland. Looking forward to hearing your results.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Appropriate discussion? #54704

Steve Graf wrote: An additional advantage I experienced from this is that a deer shot through the shoulders doesn’t go far. The first went less than 40 yds stumbling all the way. The second dropped where I shot him and never got up.

That exactly mirrors my own experiences. I’ve had several shoulder hit animals drop in their tracks, and those that didn’t were all very short recoveries, with a great number going down within sight. I must add that they all had exit wounds, though not all were pass throughs. The ‘double holes’ greatly aid in fast collapse of the lungs. There’s an old saying among the Africa Professional Hunters; “An animal lives between its shoulders”. That’s absolutely true.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: What Broadhead weight is better #54696

Ireland, just as when bare shaft tuning, finding the minimum amount of A&A pattern fletching is a step by step process. 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.

Once your shaft tuning is verified switch to the A&A 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. 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. 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 the minimum A&A fletching that will work FOR YOU is. A big factor is quality of your release (mine’s poor). Other major factors are the type of broadhead (how much wind sheer it generates) and the amount of FOC on the arrow and the shaft’s length. Your draw length on whatever length shaft you are using is also a factor. 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.

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!

Hope that is of some help,

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: What Broadhead weight is better #53926

Ireland, There are some advantages to the A&A pattern, but any of the smaller fletchings can be used, regardless of the pattern of the cut.

The A&A cut is a simple tringle. The back of the fletching is cut at a 90 degree angle, and is 1/2″ high. From the fletching’s rear to it’s front is a straight taper. This makes the fletching easy to cut from a full length feather, even if using just scissors.

The A&A’s advantage I was refering to is that the largest portion (the majority of the fletching’s surface area) is located at the very rear end. This increases the distance from the major portion (greates surface area) of the fletching to the arrow’s balance point. That means a longer rear steering arm for the greatest portion of the fletching, which permits slightly smaller fletching to be used. Smaller equals lighter, which helps when trying to get Ultra-EFOC.

A square cut rear on the fletching also shows the least air turbulance of ny design, reducing noise in flight. I also find it to be the most water resistant of any fletching pattern I’ve tried; virtually unaffected by moisture, even when soaked in a bucket of water for a full 30 minutes. I THINK that has to do with the stiffness of the low cut.

Hope that is of some help,

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: What Broadhead weight is better #51576

J.Wesbrock wrote: Even an 800-grain EFOC arrow won’t penetrate worth a lick if it flies like a corkscrew.

That’s “spot on”. Perfect arrow flight is the “enabler” for all of the other penetration enhancing factors, allowing each additional to factor perform at maximum efficiency, and is second in importance to only total structural integrity of the entire arrow system.

Start with the tip weight you want to use then develop your arrow setup around that, such that you end up with a structurally strong arrow that is tuned for as near perfect flight as you can achieve.

Unless you are shooting arrows with very, very low FOC (well below 5 or 6 percent), if your arrow is well tuned you won’t need anywhere near 5″ or 5.5″ of helical fletching to give ‘accurate arrow flight’ AND stabalize ANY (properly aligned) broadhead on the market! If your arrow’s FOC is anywhere in the commonly used range and you need that much fletching to get your arrow to shoot ‘accurate’ then the tuning is far from perfect.

Don’t take the above to mean that there’s not an advantage to using larger fletching ON HUNTING ARROWS HAVING LOWER AMOUNTS OF FOC. When FOC is at the lower levels using large amounts of fletching area helps with faster paradox recovery, and that translates into greater penetration ON SHOTS AT VERY CLOSE RANGES.

Well tuned EFOC and Ultra-EFOC arrows never require large amounts of fletching area. When properly tuned the EFOC/Ultra-EFOC arrows recover from paradox extremely quickly; far more rapidly than arrows having lower amounts of FOC. The very goal of proper FIELD-POINT bare shaft tuning EFOC/Ultra-EFOC arrows is to find the precise dynamic spine that gives rapid, correctly aligned arrow flight WITHOUT FLETCHING with the heavy point weight. Once that is acheived you only need enough fletching to overcome the broadhead’s wind shear effect (and any release irregularatied you might have).

Hope that helps a bit,

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Help me get EFOC. #48069

Keep us posted on how it’s going, RedTape.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Needless to say, the arrow did not penetrate #47098

Wapiti792, it took me about 4 years to convince my good friend Wesley too. And I don’t think it was me that convinced him; it was the four deer he lost because his light arrows and multiblade broadheads failed to penetrate bones on Georgia whitetails … from his 70 pound compound. He no longer has that problem and, after much testing with the arrow setup he now uses (perfectly tuned, 654 grains, 190 grain Grizzly tipped, 27% FOC), I doubt he ever will. On test shots on freshly downed deer we have yet to be able to get a single one to stop in a whitetail; even when BOTH shoulder or BOTH hip ball joints are hit).

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Broadhead sharpness and bloodtrails #47084

Ron, here’s my SPECULATION on that shot. The lack of penetration is easy to account for. Think of the shape of the ribs just below the spine. The surface the broadhead is impacting is a double arch, with a curving surface lengthwise of the rib and a curving surface in cross section too. Even the best of broadheads, like this Grizzly, have a skip angle of approximately 45 degrees, with many broadheads of wider dimensions having skip angles as low as 25 degrees. When the broadhead skids on the surface it redirects the arrow’s force vector. Much of the arrow’s force is no longer linear, with respect to the direction of arrow penetration.

The off side penetration barrier – the off side ribs – are mere inches away from the on side penetration barrier (the on side ribs). With the arrow’s reduced force (after a skid, or deflection) there is little retained in-line force for the arrow to penetrate the off side rib(s), and the arrow often stops right against the ribs. That was the penetration outcome I had on a bushbuck on a near identical hit. That shot was at about 25 yards, from my 94# longbow, with a 800+ grain arrow with a 190 Grizzly, and I think that’s what happened here. Like this deer, the bushbuck went down almost immediately, though there was no indication that the spine itself was hit. I believe that was a result of the blow to the rib being transferred to the spinal cord; a temporary stunning effect. I can think of no other reason for the near immediate collapse.

The skip angle of your broadhead is a greatly overlooked factor when there is an angular impact on bone. It’s something folks should pay more attention to, especially those who hunt from elevated stands. With the multidirectional curving surfaces of the ribs; especially towards the top, as they near spinal attachment; it is very easy to exceed the critical skip angle; the angle between the broadhead’s direction of travel and the surface of the bone. Shooting at a downward angle onto those ribs magnifies the odds of broadhead skip. Once there is a skip/skid of the broadhead your arrow then has to perform its “work” with whatever (now greatly decreased) arrow force it retains. When that does happen, it is a huge advantage to be using a broadhead with very high Mechanical Advantage. It allows the arrow to do more ‘work” with whatever arrow force IS available.

As for the blood, it is bright pink; definitely highly oxygenated. That means either lung or arterial blood. I doubt that the aortic artery, just below the spine, was severed; for the same reason you state. They die very quickly when that vessel is totally severed. On the other hand the blood looks less frothy than I would expect from a lung hit. Without a full post mortem there’s no way to be certain what was hit, but I would THEORIZE that the aortic artery was merely nicked, and the smooth, super sharp edge permitted free bleeding to continue unabated until blood loss was sufficient to cause death.

This is an excellent example of why there is no such thing as overkill in bowhunting. A highly likely that, had he been using a lesser arrow setup, a broadhead with a poorer skip angle and/or lower Mechanical Advantage, or anything less than a “truly sharp” broadhead that the outcome would not have been this good.

Ed

[Author]

Posts