[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Zwickey No Mercy #42499

Dave, yes, I tested the No Mercy in 2008. There will be a detailed report somewhere in the updates, but the BH testing information will be towards the end of the Updates, Probably Part 7 or 8.

In a nutshell, in punishment testing the No Mercy showed the same bend rate as the other Zwickey’s. They did very well on the direct impacts, buy bent some on the angular, heavy-bone impacts. One thing I can say is the the Zwickey heads are consistent. If you look at a side view of every bent Zwickey I have, from the Natal Study onward, ever bend looks exactly the same. None are big bends, just modest bends, but that’s enought to really hurt penetration when it does happen. Every bend, on every bent Zwickey, has occured right where the tip overlay steps down to the main blade.

Now none of that should be taken as harsh judgement. The Zwickey’s are among the better performing of what I consider the ‘standard’ traditional BH’s. There a lot of similar, “traditional” BH’s that don’t hold up that well … but there are also BH’s that are tougher.

Other than a bit harder steel and a stronger (perhaps thicker) main bladade, perhaps the thing that I’d most like to see changed on the No Mercey is the blade angle. If you look close, each edge of the blade has three destinct angles; from tip to heal. That means either sharpening three individual sections along each edge or changing the three steps into one continuous straight line; heal to toe. Sort of hard to describe the shape factor, but I’ve got good photos of it to use in the Update.

You’re right about the length/width ratio. The MA is not as high as with the Grizzly, but is higher than many other broadheads. The main-blade MA I measured on the No Mercy was was 2.11. That’s a MA better than heads like the Ace Standard or Magnus 2, but not as good as any of the Grizzly series.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: First Time Posting #42200

Welcome Mark. Glad to see you here. If all goes well, I hope that this site will be the place where we can begin to assemble both the information on equipment selections that reduce wounding/loss rates and get enough of a volumn of feedback from folks all over about what is working, and what is not working, to be meaningful.

“Knowledge is the single most important thing a bowhunter carries to the woods.”

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ashby on sharpening — posted! #42135

No Patick, you didn’t miss a thing. There’s plenty of ‘how to sharpen’ information, but not too many seem to understand what it is they are trying to accomplish, and why. Fewer yet grasp that, even when the edge is truly sharp, other broadhead factors can affect how efficiently the edge cuts. Besides that, Sharpster is the ‘how too’ sharpening expert. I think Ron can probably put a sharp edge on limp pasta!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Internal Footings #41589

David, that’s a “I don’t know”. The tapered portion only matters on angular impacts, to spread the stress force across a longer section of the shaft. A parallel section 9″ long wouldn’t stop the shaft fractures on hard, angular impacts (I’m talking the 45 degree test shots on the armor plate). Never tried parallel sections longer than that on the angular armor plate shots. All the 9″ sections did was was shift the shaft’s weak spot back, and they broke right were to dowel rod ended. At 12 to 15″ inches? It might work; might not. Best to just test one on a few 45 degree impacts on something real heard; a concrete wall should work for the angular impact test. Then we’ll know!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: EFOC and slowmotion #41353

😆 😆 😆

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: EFOC and slowmotion #41330

Bert, I’m glad someone other than me sees all the tinkering with arrow setups as fun! Be sure to keep us posted. I have NOT tried EFOC on aluminum arrows from a half-hundred bow, only the heavier bows. Who knows, might make some difference. I never rule anything out until I’ve tried it. I like the depleated uranium idea … especially being able to use a Geiger counter to locate lost arrows! Now how do we get some? 😀

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Internal Footings #41318

That’s an unknow for me Dave, I’ve never used Gorilla glue. I suspect it might be a problem if it expands as it cures. I think I’d go with a slow cure epoxy.

On bows with the shelf cut deep I’ve been building the arrow plate out. That lets you tune with a weaker dynamic spine. If you’re going to keep the total weight near 650 grains at 32% FOC you’re going to need as light a shaft weight as you can get to tune. So far, I’ve had my best results with GT Ultra Light shafts.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ground Hunting Tips #41311

Dave

Don’t know for sure just when I’ll bet back to LaGrange, but 2 hours ain’t that far away!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Paper and Bare shaft tuning? Different results? #41303

Patrick,

Done correctly, bare shaft tuning totally ignores the ‘knock kick. It’s not a factor. Tuning depends solely on the point of impact between bare-shafts, fletched shafts with field points and then fletched shafts with broadheads. It’s well described, step by step, on O.L. Adcock’s web site.

Hope that helps you out a bit,

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Elephant with a bow #41298

Dave, you have my point exactly, just from a different view. An adequate shot, who’s a good hunter, able to regularly get game within his effective range AND has the ability to still shoot at his ‘adequate’ level when faced with the moment of truth will make far more ‘successful shots’ than will the exceptional shot who doesn’t hunt as well (forcing him to take harder, higher risk shots, which being the good shot he is, he KNOWS he can make), gets excited and forgets all the important basics. An excellent shot who’s also a good hunter and able to control his emotions; now that’s a deadly combination!

I have one of my Old Derelict articles that looked at some research data for hunting success rates between the Bushman hunters of the Ju/wasi and !Xo tribes, as well as that of the hunters in the Hudza tribe. It concentrates on what the most successful hunters among these groups, who are, arguably, the most skilled trackers/hunters in the world, view as the most important qualities that contribute to a hunter’s success. Truly fascinating stuff! If you’re interested, the information I used to write that article came from a book titled, “The Art of Tracking; The Origin of Science” by Louis Lienbenberg … or you could PM your email address and I’ll send you a copy of my article.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Internal Footings #41271

Here we go, Dave, by the numbers:

#1. Initially I did have a problem with weakness at this joint, but only on the hard, direct impacts. The Insert would set-back; pushing up into the shaft. Determining how much support back of the insert was required, and determining the minimum amount of support that would work, was the most costly of all the testing (broke a lot of shafts). With the slow cure epoxy I use (Selley’s Maximum Hold) the MINIMUM combined length of glue attachment between insert/IF and the shaft’s inner wall is 3″. I THINK it will be similar with any of the quality slow-cure epoxies. There was no difference in back-set resistance between a 3″ attachment and the longer attachments. So, as long as the combined length of the insert and the parallel section of the IF is 3″ or longer, you should be fine.

#2. With the 7″ IF the spine change was not very much, but as the IF gets longer (by lengthening the parallel portion) the spin becomes decidedly stiffer. This can be a useful tuning tool at times.

#3. Perleminary information on what the data to date indicates about the relationship between FOC, mass and penetration will be upcoming in (I think) the Part 6 or 7 Update. For a quick answer, I THINK the 650 grain 32% FOC setup will edge-out the 765 grain 28% FOC setup. A SERIES of head to head test (so an average outcome can be determined) between these two setups would be real nice (hint, hint). I’ll be waiting for your results! 😀

When I’m up to it again, I’ll be trying some more work in the Ultra-EFOC range. There will be some initial test data upcoming (Part 3 or 4) with a 655 grain Ultra-EFOC arrow (31.4%) from the 82# longbow, along with how it compared to other arrow setups from the same bow; including the ‘traditional’ super-heavy buffalo arrow setups. It’s pretty eye-popping stuff, and shakes the traditional norms for “heavy game” arrows.

Hope that answered your questions. If not, fire away!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: EFOC and slowmotion #40920

Yes, higher FOC lowers the occilation, but there’s still some difference in occilation rate between carbon and aluminum. The materials themselves react differently, and carbon does recover faster than aluminum. That said, aluminum still gains benefit from higher FOC. When working with high amounts of FOC I’ve found it more difficult to tune aluminum shafts than carbon shafts, especially as the FOC approaches the upper levels of EFOC. I’ve not attempted any Ultra-EFOC arrows with aluminum.

EFOC offers many benefits, regardless of the shaft material. The only difference is in the effort required to tune the arrows and the degree of benefit derived, but don’t think that means it isn’t worth doing. In next month’s Primitive Archer there will be a Part 2 Article on the bows and arrows of Papua New Guinea. It’s worth a read for all modern bowhunters. That Part 2 article contains information/measurements from two sets of arrows used by a tribe living in the Bula Plains region of PNG. One set consist of several hardwood-tipped arrows with slender cane shafts, and are from pre-WWII. The arrows in the other, currently used set have large diameter cane shafts and absolutely MASSIVE points hand-forged from rebar. As you can imagine, there’s an absolutely enormous difference in the weight of the arrows in each set. What absolutely blew me away was that both sets have been carefully crafted to a near idential amount of Ultra-EFOC! (Is Ultra-EFOC “traditional”? Has it been a well kept – or overlooked – ‘secret’ used by primitive bowhunters for centuries?)

After it appears in Primitive Archer, I’ll post a copy of the entire article in the Library here, along with a few additional comments and observation about the information, and what messages about tuning and using Ultra-EFOC arrows it has for us ‘moderns’.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Elephant with a bow #40359

Absolutely true! I’ve guided hunters who were ‘really good shots’ (on targets) who shot really poorly on every animal, and I’ve also guided hunters who barely shot ‘adequately’ (on targets), yet consistently made well place, clean killing shots on each and every animal they fired at. It’s neither the weapon nor the technical skill of the shooter, it the “hunter”. Some folks just have more “hunter” than others.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Elephant with a bow #40343

rayborbon wrote: I’m willing to bet it takes a lot less luck and research to kill an elephant with a single shot from a rifle than it does with a bow and single arrow. Supply right caliber, bullet and shot placement – done deal in one or two shots I bet.

An arrow requires no more luck than a rifle, but it does take more research and preparation. Just as for rifles, right bow, right arrow with the right broadhead, and right shot placement – done deal in one shot. And the up side for most of the bowhunters attempting an elephant is that they know they have to properly prepare. Many of the rifle hunters don’t prepare properly, and many of those we guided showed up with guns they were terrified to shoot. As a consequence they shot them rather poorly … with less than nice results.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Internal Footings #40322

It’s worth mentioning that the tapered portion of the IF NEEDS TO BE STRAIGHT; that is, aligned with the center axis of the shaft. I start with a dowel rod and turn it down while it’s rotating (lathe, or lathe technique in a drill press or hand drill). The 6mm diameter hardwood dowels I get in Australia are ‘sopt on’ diameter for most of the commonly used carbon shafts, but I haven’t been able to locate them here in the States, so using 1/4″ as a start.

Unless done in a lathe, where one end can be supported by a ‘live center’, you’ll need to go slowly, using very light pressure against the dowel. They’re thin dowels, and too much pressure will just flex the dowel, instead of removing the material that is ‘off-axis’. When it’s ‘trued’ there will be no visible wobble as the dowel rotates. I try to true up the alignment before doing the final tapering of the back 5″ to get the degree of flex I’m looking for in the IF.

The IF’s takes a bit of patience to make correctly, and can be a pain at times, but well worth the effort if you’re after maximum shaft integrity.

Ed

[Author]

Posts