[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Turbulators #62194

Smithhammer wrote: [quote=kirkll]A need for a significant amount of helical and offset in order to acheive good arrow flight is, imo, an indication that I need to revisit my tuning.

With an arrow having a FOC in the upper EFOC range, or greater, that says it all!

When trying for UEFOC it becomes a balancing act. Sometimes adding a VERY SLIGHT amount of fletching offset allows a shorter fletch to give complete stability, under all wind conditions, and that can save a few grains of weight at the arrow’s rear. As the FOC enters the UEFOC range, and trying for maximum FOC, every grain shaved off the arrow’s rear becomes important. Other than that, with feathers, straight fletching is all that’s ever needed on arrows in mid-EFOC, or greater, range.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: TAPERED SHAFTS…historically speaking #49988

Jim, my best guess would be that they just added a foreshaft to a normal length arrow. Those hardwoods would likely be as stiff and strong as the cane shaft.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: EFOC high wind video #45891

Doc, would it help if I nameed one of the baby hogs after you?

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: EFOC high wind video #45752

Great video, Jason. However, I do have to agree with Doc Nock (Ouch, that hurts), if you will try some smaller fletching you won’t get nearly as much flaying around of the arrows in a high wind. The larger fletching is just giving the wind more surface area to act on.

On an UEFOC arrow like you have there, there is just no way you need anything close to the amount of fletching you are using, regardless of the broadhead used. If those UEFOC arrows are tuned well all the fletching you need is enough to overcome the broadhead’s windsheer. Anything more than that is actually hurting your arrow’s performance.

I spent a lot of time experimenting with fletching for the EFOC and Ultra-EFOC arrows. I think if you will give the A&A pattern fletching a try on that arrow setup, and test it in the wind, you might just fall in love with their strange looks.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: TAPERED SHAFTS…historically speaking #44784

Dave, I tried to locate more information on the western and planes American Indian tribes and detachable foreshaft arrows. I didn’t come up with much that was very specific on materials but if you will do a Google search for “american indian arrows with detachable foreshafts” with a bit of searching through the results you will find a number of references to such arrows being used. I even located one that had a brief reference to the Ute Indians using arrows with detachable foreshafts – http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/berkeley/beals3/beals3f.htm

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: TAPERED SHAFTS…historically speaking #43523

Dave, the only intact arrows I’ve seen with ‘bird points’ were cane shafts with a rather long and heavy hardwood fore shaft to which the bird point was attached. The hardwood was, naturally, smaller in diameter than the cane, and much heavier in GPI. Thus it was the fore shaft, not the point weight, that provided the arrow’s FOC.

It’s hard to see the details in this photo but you can readily see the color change between the cane shaft are the much darker hardwood shaft. I’ve heard that black walnut and hickory were both popular fore shaft woods used by the southeastern tribes and that the heart wood of the Texas persimmon (which is not a true persimmon but, rather, a close relative of ebony, and is extremely hard, tough and heavy) was popular for this use in my area of South Texas. I have hundreds of the Texas persimmon trees on my property here in the Hill Country.

The only arrows of this type I’ve seen were also significantly longer that the usual Native American arrows, with the cane section being almost as long as a ‘normal’ arrow and the fore shaft extending for several more inches. – Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: TAPERED SHAFTS…historically speaking #37108

I’m not sure that it is the bow weight that was a deciding factor in the type of release developed. Many of the Ottoman bows were as heavy (and sometimes heavier) in draw weight as the English longbows, and were fired with the thumb ring release.

The PNG natives bow’s were somewhere in the 80 to 90 pound draw weight range,. They use a finger release.

I’m firmly convinced that our early ancestors were far more advanced in the understanding of archery than are many of our contemporaries, and I believe they experimented extensively with bow design, arrow design and shooting techniques.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Caroline & David Petersen #32378

Dave, there truly are no words that can describe how I feel for your loss. Perhaps the best are simply, “My heart is heavy”. Know that we are all here for you Dave – any time.

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Caroline & David Petersen #25797

Both Dave and Caroline will be in my prayers.

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: FPS/Slugs and bones…. #9351

KINGWOULDBE wrote: In my experience more is better, until you can’t handle it, then back down until you can, in hunting we are only taking a few shots, not shooting a field tournament of 100+ arrows.

If you can shoot the heavier limbs I would, Howard Hill liked to hunt with 80-90lb bows because of the better cast and deeper penetration, he and Bear both said; the most important thing is penetration, with out enough penetration you will not reach the vitals.

No one, & I mean NO ONE, has ever lost an animal from to much penetration, on the other hand, countless animals have been lost from lack of penetration, even if it was hit bad, a pass through is better than not getting deep enough.

Big bears are north Americas most dangerous game, the adrenalin factor alone could cause one to make a less than perfect shot to begin with, sticking a big bear with a sharp stick could get one eaten, I would also not want my arrow to stay in him, so he could see it and cause more flight in his reaction, usually if it just jumps through them, they are more puzzled to what just happened, than if they see an arrow wagging in there side.

I am assuming you would be shooting 20 yards or under, I would shoot the heaviest bow I could work up to, shooting only 5 or six arrow with it a day, yet making perfect shots as I can, I would also shoot around 1000 grains with UEFOC ( ultras extreme forward of center ) I do not need a flat shooting arrow, I want a deep penetrating arrow.

Just my 2 cents and worth what you paid for it.

PS, I shot this boar at around 30 yards with a 60# centaur longbow, a 675 grain arrow with a tuffhead and over 30% uefoc, I only got about 11′ into him, hitting him in the heart, I did a test shot @ around 6 yards after he was dead and only got about 4 more inches of penetration.

I would not shoot this set up at a Brown bear.

King has some very sound advice there. This is a brown Bear I shot in the late ’70’s. The BIG Browns are BIG and TOUGH. The longbows hanging to the Bear’s right are 70″ long!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Lower Bow Weights, The Ashby Report and Whitetail Hunting. #26154

Hello Steve, great to see you back.

Those who have heard my presentations will have heard this before but it seems to be the one thing that has never made it into any of the various YouTube videos folks have posted, even though I view it as one of the most important things folks should take away from the presentation.

The penetration enhancing factors should be looked at as a toolbox of goodies that one can use to improve the terminal performance of their hunting arrows. Adding any one of the factors will improve the arrow setup. Added two improves it more, and so on. One should start with the two basic factors, and they should apply to every hunting arrow one uses: total arrow integrity and perfect arrow flight. From there each factor added further enhances the penetration of the structurally intact, perfect flying arrow.

No one is saying that everyone must use every single factor. You can pick and choose which you want to use. Of course, if you want the absolute maximum in terminal performance you should try to incorporate every factor but just changing one improves your arrow setup. For example, just changing the weight distribution of your arrow from normal or high FOC to EFOC or UEFOC, without changing the overall arrow weight, will improve the terminal performance of that structurally-intact, perfect flying arrow. Similarly, merely changing from a low MA broadhead to a higher MA broadhead will the improve terminal of that arrow. Even something as simple as changing from mild-steel broadhead to one with better edge-retaining ability during penetration improves that structurally-intact, perfect flying arrow’s terminal performance.

Just remember that the factors are ‘ranked’ in the order of overall benefit and that they build upon each other. The penetration enhancement gained by adding two factors will be greater that sum of penetration gained from adding each separately to the arrow, and so-on.

Go get’um Steve!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Turbulators #22949

Smithhammer wrote: I’d say that we’re mostly re-learning what was pushed aside as the enthusiasts of our sport chose to focus on other archery “traditions” throughout much of the 20th century. Not much that’s truly all that new here, really.

Amen, Brother.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Turbulators #22947

Bender wrote: An arrow stabilizes with both drag AND spin. Out of curiousity, any idea what a turbulator does to spin?

On arrows in the upper EFOC range and into UEFOC I use a straight, A&A pattern fletch; no helical and no off-set. The natural curve of the feather creates enough spin to stabilize even very large broadheads. The A&A fletching is very small, with small surface area. I’ve never tried to measure the spin difference. Rather I tune the fletching size to be the minimum that will stabilize the broadhead to be used, under all wind conditions.

There is also some question as to whether any spin is needed at very high levels of FOC (at all practical ranges). The PNG natives, shooting arrows in the upper 30% to low 40% FOC range use no feathers, and their arrows appear very stable in flight. To be consider also is the very long shafts they use. The significant surface area of the shaft would also provide a large ‘surface drag, factor; much greater than what we have on our shorter, smaller diameter shafts.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Turbulators #22898

bearbowbob wrote: Gotta wonder what the cavemen would say to that! Or the Indians for that matter …

An interesting thing is that turbulators are found on ancient, pre-historic aboriginal boomerangs. For years these were thought to be merely decorations but more recent wind-tunnel testing has discovered that these are deliberately placed scorings that create a turbulator effect, increasing both flight time and stability.

We ‘moderns’ ain’t as far advanced from primitive man as we like to think we are!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Man Eaters of Kumaon #22067

Murray wrote: Speaking of suspending belief,, even though I’ve read and enjoyed all of Capstick’s books … He was a very entertaining writer, if you liked his wannabe Ruark style, and I guess I do, since I think I own all his books.

I met Peter and his wife, and Gordon Cormack (the PH I was ‘appie’ for) knew them well and spent many nights in their home. All I’ll say is that the stories Perer wrote about are all from real events … in the life of actual P.H’s. Enough said. All else notwithstanding, Peter’s writings attracted a lot of interest in African hunting, brought lots of new clients to Africa and made him a relatively comfortable living.

Ed

[Author]

Posts