[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Broadhead sharpness and bloodtrails #46915

Ron, I’ve seen very, very similar results once before; on a bushbuck. I did get to post mortem that shot and have a few thoughts to share about this hit, but have an apointment I have to go to right now. I’ll share those thoughts when I get back.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: MA, Turbulators, FOC penetration Effect, Etcetera #42618

That’s about where I’m at so far, 32%.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Help me get EFOC. #42388

Red Tape, there’s no ‘cook book’ answer to what shaft will tune with what tip weight, draw weight and draw length. There are a great many factors that will affect what dynamic spine you are going to need. Major among these are your bow’s efficiency, the degree of center shot of your bow, your shooting technique and the quality of your release.

If it’s any help, when I initially started working with EFOC my tendency was to start with a static spine that proved to be way too stiff when I tried to tune it; but most of my bows are far from centershot. Now I always start with the lowest static spine that I think might possible work.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Just a reminder … #42375

coyote220 wrote: I guess there is paperwork everywhere.

Unfortunately, detailed records are a necessity for any meaningful research! With Outcome Driven Studies it is even moreso, because a huge number of results are needed to find the trends: What CAN occur; how often does a particular outcome actually occur; under what conditions is it more likely to occur; what factor influence the frequency of occurrance and how much do those factors influence the frequency. The answers require sifting through huge amounts of information, over and over. That’s a big reason it takes so long to find the answers.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Wondering about the Turbulator #42369

Ed, the turbulator merely increases the pressure the air flow exerts on the fletching. What the turbulator does for a well tuned hunting arrow is allow the use of significantly less fletching. This reduces weight on the shaft’s rear, allowing higher FOC. This is s really important feature when trying to reach the upper levels of FOC, because the rear leaver arm gets longer as FOC gets higher. Having a longer leaver rear arm means that a one grain reduction in weight at the shaft’s rear has more effect on FOC than adding several grain to the arrow’s point.

However, the turbulator-permitted smaller fletching has many other benefits on a hunting arrow. Here are a few:

(1) There is less arrow drag in flight, permitting more of the arrow’s energy to be applied to arrow flight and penetration. (Arrow shoots flatter, retains more arrow energy downrange and penetrates better.)

(2) It allows use of very low profile fletching, which is vastly stiffer and far less affected by moisture. (When we were testing the A&A fletching, even when soaked for 30 minutes in a bucket of water, and shot without even shaking the excess water off, Wesley could detect no difference in impact – with broadheads – even at ranges beyond 40 yards; and he’s easily capable of sub-2″ groups at 40 distance with his compound.)

(3) The smaller fletching (I use the A&A pattern, straight fletched) has a lower noise level in flight than any other fletching I’ve found.

(4) The smaller fletching is less affected in cross and quatering wind conditions.

Hope that helps,

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: MA, Turbulators, FOC penetration Effect, Etcetera #42338

Richie, unless the arrow is tuned for as near perfect flight as you can get without fletching then the fletching is having to overcome some degree of unnecessary irregularity in arrow flight. The most damaging (penetration wise) flight irregularity would be a greater degree and duration of shaft oscillation. If your arrow is correctly bare shaft tuned then shaft oscillation will be at a minimum, and the fletching does not have to ‘fight’ to overcome shaft oscillation.

Use enough fletching and even a poorly tuned shaft will shoot ‘straight’, but the fletching is having to exert great pressure to overcome both the shaft’s tendency to deviate and the excess shaft oscillations the use of an incorrect dynamic spine caused.

Hope that’s stated understandable,

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: MA, Turbulators, FOC penetration Effect, Etcetera #38034

sapcut wrote: But… due to their size and very little extra weight they do allow for the stabilization of more weight up from which allows for a few more percentage points of FOC…..which I strive for.

Richie

What’s important is that the DYNAMIC SPINE of your arrow be correct to counteract the amount of point weight you are using; whatever that amount might be. You’re balancing the shaft’s dynamic spine to the point weight you are using AND to both your individual bow and your personal shooting technique. That’s the entire goal of bare shaft tuning; to get perfect arrow flight (on a field point tipped arrow) FROM YOUR BOW when shot by YOU, and WITHOUT ANY FLETCHING masking the arrow’s flight characteristics.

If a given shaft is correctly bare shaft tuned (with a field point) it should shoot every bit as accurately as it does when you add fletching. If the tuning is correct and you then add additional point weight the tuning will no longer be correct. Yes, you can increase fletching size/surface area and get the shaft to shoot accurately, but the shaft is no longer tuned.

When you add fletching it has a STIFFENING EFFECT on the arrow’s flight, but it DOES NOT actually stiffen the spine. What you are doing is adding excess fletching to mask the ‘weak spine’ flight characteristic of the shaft. (When I speak of bare shaft tuning so that there is a ‘slight weak spine impact’ I’m refering to no more than two to three inches off of dead center, left to right, at 40 meters; 44 yards; no more than that.)

With enough fletching area you can get a very poorly tuned arrow to ‘shoot accurately’; hitting your target; but the arrow will have an excess amount of paradox, and there will be an extended time of shaft vibration (oscillation) as the arrow travels down range. That has a marked, detremental effect on penetration. Even a modest increase in shaft oscillation at the time of impact severely decreases penetration. At all practical hunting distances, any extra penetration gains you are achieving by using excess fletching area to give a spine stiffening EFFECT (to overcome the shaft’s excessively weak dynamic spine) will, in all probability, be more than offset by the increased resistance caused by the increased shaft oscillation at impact.

When two EFOC arrows are both properly tuned, the arrow with higher FOC shows more penetration than an arrow with lower FOC precisely because it has less shaft oscillation, which reduces shaft drag. This is probably better explained in:

https://www.tradbow.com/members/256.cfm

It’s important to remember that perfect arrow flight is one of the three prime requirements that EVERY hunting arrow should have (total arrow integrity, perfect arrow flight and a broadhead that’s truly sharp). Perfect arrow flight is the ‘enabler’ for all of the other penetration enhancing factors. Anything less than perfect tuning of your arrow will have a detrimental effect on the amount of penetration gain you obtain from each additional penetration enhancing feature you add, including increased FOC.

It is only after you have achieved perfect arrow flight that the arrow’s degree of FOC comes into play. A poorly tuned EFOC/Ultra-EFOC arrow won’t penetrate as well as a perfectly tuned arrow with normal FOC. Somewhere above ‘poorly tuned’, and short of “perfectly tuned”, the EFOC/Ultra-EFOC will begin to exceed the penetration of the perfectly tuned normal/high FOC arrow. Exactly where depends on the quality of the arrow’s flight.

Hope that helps clear up the difference,

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: MA, Turbulators, FOC penetration Effect, Etcetera #37604

sapcut wrote:

On an arrow that is already well tuned (correctly bare shaft tuned), using the minimum fletching required to overcome the wind shear created by the broadhead gives a higher FOC. As one approaches the level of Ultra-EFOC reducing shaft weight at the arrow’s rear becomes a major factor in the degree of FOC change you and attain.

Using the bareshaft tuned arrow above, why not add a little more weight (50 gr.) to the front making it a little weak, then add slightly larger fletching (2-3 gr.). The end result is higher FOC and tuned perfectly with fletching. I think that is the way to maximize the FOC.

Richie

Richie, for me a “correctly bare shaft tuned” shaft will already be showing a very slight amount of ‘weak’ dynamic spine; because addition of the fletching is going to have a slight stiffening effect on the dynamic spine. If additional weight is added to the already tuned bare shaft you will be dealing with a greater degree of weak dynamic spine. I try to get the shaft tuning to a point that I can use the minimum amount of fletching possible; just enough to overcome the broadhead’s wind shear effect (and whatever release errors I introduce into the equation). This results in the highest FOC I can attain on that particular, “well tuned” shaft setup.

If one adds additional tip weight to an already “correctly tuned” bare shaft setup then an excessively weak dynamic spine situation is created. Using additional fletching will overcome this, but in doing so some degree of the arrow’s efficiency of flight is lost; mostly in paradox recovery.

Hope that clarifies,

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Just a reminder … #35445

Thanks, Adrian. I fully understand boning out the animal in place. Before starting the Study I always did exactly the same thing … anytime I had to pack the animal out on my back!

The additional information is appreciated, and the indierct evidence does, indeed, suggest substantial internal bleeding. Would be nice to know for sure what caused the curled tip on the Brown Bear, but no way to ever know for sure.

Thanks again,

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: The Silent Arrow #35032

I’m still hanging in there. Next knee op is Nov. 4th.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Share a Tip #34832

1. Animals, whether wounded or unwounded, usually circle in a down wind direction before bedding down. From such a down wind position they will be able to scent any predator (including a tracking hunter) following their trail. This is extremely important to the hunter when trailing potentially dangerous wounded game. Any ‘ambush’ almost always comes from the downwind side, and frequently after the hunter passes the animal’s position. Remember that animals do not realize that humans lack their sense of smell, and they want to be in a position to smell the ‘trailing threat’ before you smell them!

2. When following an animal’s tracks, it is best to keep the sun on the opposite side of the track from one’s position of observation. The shadow cast by the track is best observed from this position, and the track becomes more visible. The shadow is also more pronounced when the sun’s angle is low. Tracks are most visible in the morning and afternoon hours, and hardest to see when the sun is overhead. For nightline tracking, it is also best if any light source used can be placed at a low angle, and on the side of the track opposite the observer

3. Need to temporarily camo your bow? Paste auto wax can be colored with food colorings to make almost any shade. Mix the colors you desires and just ‘dab’ on with a moist cloth or sponge and allow to dry. The finish will be ‘flat’ and glare free. You can use this method to easily and quickly alter the camo pattern/colors of your bow (or other gear) to match the area you’re hunting in at the time. An added bonus is that the wax protects the bow. I also like to use a ‘unruffled’ coat of paste wax over my bows when bow fishing, especially in salt water. The wax is easily removed with a wet cloth or sponge and a little ‘elbow grease’, and leaves the bow waxed and shining!

4. Excellent, and inexpensive, camo clothing can be made by tie-dying old clothes. Multiple colors, and endless ‘irregular’ patterns, can be created. Start with the lightest color in your desired ‘finished pattern’ first, and progress to the next darkest color in each subsequent dying of the garment, re-tying the garment before each re-dying to achieve a random pattern of the colors.

5. If you’re going ‘all out’ for camouflage don’t forget the face. A broad face with two forward facing eyes is a characteristic of the predatory animals, and most prey animals readily recognize this feature. Try to break the outline and mask the ‘two eyed monster’ appearance. Don’t forget the eyelid! If not camouflaged, it will stand out like a ‘flashing light’ with each blink.

6. One of my most favored ways of scouting an unfamiliar hunting area is to pick up the spoor on one animal and then track him; slowly stalking along as stealthfully as I can. Should I lose that individual track I pick up the spoor of another animal ad start all over.

Not only are you hunting as you go, as you can stay on the track you will learn where that particuar animal feeds, waters and beds; areas often of ‘common use’ for others of that species. You will also learn the travel route(s) used between these areas. As you follow the track your will also locate the trails and areas many of the other animals are using. These can be explored later. This exercise not only scouts the area, and allows you to be hunting as you do so, it hones you tracking skills.

7. Most big game bowhunters spend hours and hours of each ‘off-season’ practicing their shooting skills but very few spend much time honing their hunting skills. Doing a lot of small game hunting can help, but the finest off-season hunting for honing your hunting skills is predator calling.

When a predator responds to a call he is expecting SOMETHING to already be there; generally another predator. They respond very alert and cautious. If you can learn to get into your shooting position, draw and get a shot off at a critter responding to a perdator call, without being detected, beating big game ‘to the draw’ becomes easy.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: The Silent Arrow #34791

mountainslicker wrote: Would cresting paint act in the same way andor if tape was put at the leading bitter end of front of feathers would it work as well as holding ends better than a bump of glue?

I THINK (haven’t tried it, so not certain) that a ring of creasting paint placed the same as turbulator would work IF THE THICKNESS of the paint were sufficient. It’s the abrupt ‘bump up’ and ‘drop down’ of the turbulator that creates the disruption in air flow; with the disrupted air flow increasing the pressure exerted on the fletching. If the cresting paint is just applied normally I think the tapering edges of the paint might not have the same effect though. You would probably need to tape off the area on each side before applying the paint. Removing the tape after the paint dried should then leave a ‘square edge’ to the cresting stripe. Sounds like all together too much work though.

Again, I’m not certain what effect using a tiny ‘tag’ of tape to secure the leading edge of each feather would have. Haven’t tried that either. Can’t see where it would do much more than the tiny dot of glue though. It certainly won’t replace the turbulator. You need that ‘ring’, with its stup-up and step-down, and it works best with just one narrow, single ring placed about 1/4″ forward of the fletching’s leading edge.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Just a reminder … #34773

Coyote 220, sounds like great results on a QUARTERING TOWARDS shot. With ‘usual’ arrow setups the Study’s ‘usual shot outcome’ of quartering towards shots, even of modest size game, were so poor that such a shot could not be recommended. Maximizing your arrow’s terminal performance, especially as regards arrow integrity, broadhead skip angle and keeping arrow mass above the heavy bone threashold, has made the forward quartering shot a very viable option, at least for moderate size game.

Mountainslicker, that’s an option, but the only problem is that you will likely lose your broadhead and adaptor on most shots! If you want to see how this works try a shot into a foam target without having the broadhead (with adaptor, if used, and the insert) guled into the shaft. The shaft stops, but the broadhead/adaptor/insert continues traveling forward. When I’ve tried that I have the shaft stop in the target, but the broadhead carries on, often exiting the target and traveling on for several feet or yards past the target (and hard to find!).

Apfarmer, it sounds like your setup performed to perfection. What was the level of internal bleeding into the thorax when you opened the chest cavity?

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: The Silent Arrow #26560

Steve, for years I used 75/105 four fletching but, just as you, found that 90 degree four fletching has less noise in flight. Also, the straight fletch is much quieter than helical fletching (and at the upper FOC levels, if your arrow is tuned, there’s absolutely no need whatsoever for the helical fletch).

I also find that an absolutely square cut at the feather’s back is quieter than any other profile I’ve tried; thus the absolute, right angle triangle shape of the A&A cut.

Here’s something you might try, just for interest. Set up some identical arrows with fletching of the same pattern and size, except for the shape of the fletching’s trailing edge. Try several trailing edge profiles; rounded, V-shaped; straight taper to the rear; shield cut and square cut. Now hide behind safe cover (such as around the edge of a building, or behind a really big tree) about 35 of 40 yards downrange and have someone shoot the arrows past your protected position and just listen to the difference in the sound as the arrow’s fly by. The difference in the audible sound level is astonishing.

The turbulator will increase pressure on any size (surface area) fletching, increasing the stabilizing effect. This will give the same effect as increasing fletching size (surface area).

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: EFOC #26542

My pleasure, Ireland.

Ed

[Author]

Posts