[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Internal Footings #33535

Steve,

The IF was developed as a way to strengthen carbon shafts. The
2007 Update, Part 2 will give you a lot of the hows, whys, and what fors about the IF.

I tried out-footings but found 2 problem areas with them. One, they increase the shaft diameter. Not a problem with some broadheads, but with others they reduced the ferrule diameter/shaft diameter ratio enough to affect penetration and, second, on really hard angular impacts they showed a tendency for the shaft to break right at the rear of the out-footing. There’s a reasonable discussion of why this happens in the aforementioned Update.

There are several factors critical to keeping the the insert and IF joined and preventing ‘backset’ on hard, direct impacts. One is the quality of the epoxy and the care in preping component parts for gluing. Next, the ‘glue ring’ back of the forward, parallel section of the IF is a very important factor. Third, and the most costly to determine, is that a MINIMUM of 3″ of shaft wall attachment to insert and IF is required. Less length of attachment and there was backset on direct impacts.

Now this amount of strength MAY be overkill of a hard, heavy bone impact, but that’s not a chance I want to take. Just look at the shaft damage rates that are shown in the Update. In many ways, a bone impact MIGHT be even harder on the structural integrity of the arrow system than the testing I used in the IF development.

During development, the IF durability/strength testing was done with direct and 45 degree angular impacts from 20 yards against a 3/8″ piece of armor plate (the hatch cover from an armored personnel carrier). Most bones have surfaces that are specifically designed to deflect and redirect impact forces. They have surfaces that simultaneously curve in more than one direction. This can cause some really wierd, fast directional change stress patterns on the arrow, pushing its integrity to the limit.

The ability to use the IF as a way of increasing FOC and fine-tuning dynamic arrow spine are just very useful side benefits. Total structural integrity of the arrow system is the BIG reason for using the IF. As you’ll also see in the upcoming 2008 Updates there appeared to be less stess on the arrow’s direct-impact structutal integrity with the Ultra-EFOC arrows; where shaft weight was reduced over the arrows previously tested, in order to get above 30% FOC. Far from conclusive though. Unless further testing shows something unexpected, I’ll keep using IF on my ‘serious’ hunting arrows.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Internal Footings #33425

Looks like a killer setup David. Structurally that should be a good, tough arrow. With so many variable component parts how hard was it to get the tuning right? It going to be interesting to see how it performs. Have you tried any adverse angle punishment test shots yet?

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ground Hunting Tips #32870

Dave, those are 2 of my most favorite animals to hunt. No doubt that pigs are numro uno for me. The animal I’d most like to take in all the world is the Giant Forrest Hog. Had a hunt lined up with some French bowhunting friends in the Ivory Coast, but 2 weeks before I was supposed to go the IC had the first of its last 5 govenrment overthrows! My friends had to flee the country.

I’ve always built up my own Gillie suits; done as a pancho on open netting. Not too hot if you wear shorts and tee shirt underneath. When it was really hot (but in a drier climate than Georgia) I’ve been know to soak my Gillie suit in water. Makes a pretty good evaporative cooler!

Where in Georgia do you live? I occasionally visit friends near LaGrange. HGope to do so again around Christmas, assuming I’m finished with the radiation treatments by then.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Recurve vs. Longbow #32801

My preferred bow is the longbow. It is to bowhunting what the double guns are to rifle/shotgun world; simple, reliable, easy handling, fast to use and more than accurate enough for the job.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ground Hunting Tips #32791

Stalking, all forms of it, are as good as hunting can get. Move S … L … O … W … L … Y; learn to ‘pussyfoot”; watch the wind; stay alert; THINK like a predator; resist the urge to shoot until the animal is well within your personal “zone” (that set of ranges where you hardly ever miss a shot). If you’re old, all busted up, can’t bend, creep and crawl any longer, and where safe to use, Gillie suits are a fantastic stalking aid.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Spot and stalk black bear? #31596

Peter,

Pick you location well. Western states, Alaska and western Canada are good for spot and stalk. Flat, forrested areas of Eastern states are harder for S&S; better over baits. S&S is a lot more fun!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Dave's bull — Ashby performance report #30724

Dave,

That ‘hole’ in the scapular flat is precisely typical. Splits from hits in the ‘flat’ are rare; they come from hits neat the scapular head. Here are a couple more. Note the extreme similarity of hole size. No shaft drag there!

First pic is zebra scapula. Note single-bevel ‘hole’ (green arrow), bone chip (black arrow) made by 190 Grizzly and hole left by double-bevel Howard Hill BH (blue arrow).

Second pic is from David Messiaen’s Mouflon; another 190 Grizzly.

Consistency of performance on the scapular flat.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: What do you like best about Bowhunting? #30681

When all is just right, I’m as close as I’ll ever get to what once was; what made all mankind what we are.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A Case Study: How the 'stories and experiences' thread helps us understand arrow design. #45161

Steve, you’ve pretty well described it, but also worthy of note is that the penetration maximized arrow consistently achieved exit wounds through the 1″ thick skin of the Asian buffalo.

Looking through the approximately 700 Asian buffalo shots in the current testing serie’s database, one of the notable features is that very few of the arrow setups which manage to traverse the thorax retain (conserve) enough of their force to FULLY BREACH the off-side rib (the broadhead passing completely through the rib, not stopping in the rib); and how few of those that do manage to breach the off-side rib retain enough force to provide an exit wound through the tough, fiberous, thick skin of the Asian buffalo.

Years of repeated and systematic testing, at or very near the same force level, of identical arrows, save one altered arrow feature, has helped isolate the most significant arrow design features affecting arrow penetration. By combining as many on the known factors as I could into this particular arrow setup, a combination was finally arrived at where complete penetration, with an exit wound, was the norm – the most likely outcome on each shot – at the modest level of arrow force at which the testing was conducted.

The significant difference in penetration between the Study’s penetration-maximized arrow and the arrow used in Mr. Lefemine’s test is the amount of penetration achieved (the “work” done) relative to the force required to accomplish that work. That, in physics, is efficiency; doing more work with less applied effort. And this is the goal. As the game gets bigger, or the poundage of your bow gets less, arrow efficiency becomes increasingly more important. There’s no such thing as overkill in bowhunting. No one has ever lost an animal because their arrow penetrated too much.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Stories, Experience and your Dr. Ashby Inspired Set-Up #44066

I posted this case study as a seperate thread, but it rightly belongs here.

Here’s an example of how and why all the information we can assemble, regardless of the equipment used, helps expand our understanding of how arrow design affects arrow terminal performance; which is the entire purpose of this forum.

If you will check out the “CSI – Mozambique Penetration Test” on the Bowsite forum site (http://www.bowsite.com/bowsite/features/articles/equipment/penetration2/) there is some very useful information, and I highly commend Mr. Pat Lefemine for collecting and posting the data from his Cape buffalo kill shot and three test shots. I do wish the skin had not been removed from the buffalo before the test shots were taken, but as Mr. Lefemine correctly states in the associated discussion thread, the skin of the Cape buffalo (over the chest area) is not very thick, and its absence probably had little effect on the results. Having hunted and tested on both Cape and Asian buffalo, the structural differences between the Cape and Asian (as noted in the 2004 Study Updates) is what makes the Asian buffalo somewhat more difficult to penetrate than the Cape buffalo, with skin thickness over the chest area being one of the very notable differences.

Please check out the results of the Cape buffalo shots shown on Bowsite. The bow used is a 90# compound, the arrow is an 1100 grain double-shafted one, and the broadhead a double-beveled, 200 grain Muzzy single blade. The reported velocity is 200 fps. That translates to 97.7 ft.-lbs. of kinetic energy (KE) and 0.977 Slug-Feet/Second of momentum.

These results make an excellent comparison base against the best performing, penetration maximized arrow setup tested in the Study, to date. That would be the Internally Footed EFOC arrow, as detailed in 2007 Update, Part 3. The bow used was an 82# at 27” draw, straight-end longbow. Arrow weight is 790 grains, only 2/3 the mass of the compound’s arrow. Velocity was a modest 151 fps, 25 % slower than the compounds arrow. This gives 38.9 ft.-lbs. of KE, less than 40% of the KE carried by the compound’s 1100 grain arrow. It has a momentum of 0.523 Slug-Feet/Second, just over one-half that of the compound’s heavier arrow.

On a very large adult Asian buffalo (not skinned), on all back of the shoulder shots, from a test distance of 20 yards, these 790 grain, penetration-maximized arrows broke both the entrance and exit side ribs on each hit, with 100% of the shots (5 of 5) providing an exit wound through the 1” thick skin. Median tissue penetration (the length of the wound channel through the tissues, not counting off-side arrow protrusion) was 23.875 inches. On its one shoulder shot it broke ribs on both the entrance and exit sides, with the broadhead passing completely through the off side rib, but failed to exit the skin.

This same bow and penetration-maximized arrow setup also produced an exit wound on a hunted trophy class bull, sticking some 20” of shaft out the off-side. All of these shots exceed the penetration shown/described by any of the compound’s reported Cape buffalo shots. We can’t directly compare scapular hits, because of the shooting angle differences. The only scapula shots taken in the Study’s testing were taken at 45 degrees, quartering from the front. As noted in the Update, that shooting angle was used because this particular test sequence was primarily directed at the structural integrity aspect of the Internal Footing, not at penetrating the scapula. However, even from this extremely adverse shooting angle one-half (3 of 6) of those shots penetrated the scapula, with two stopping in the on-side rib and one penetrating the underlying rib, entering the lungs.

What accounts for the terminal performance difference, despite the compound’s huge advantage in arrow force? It’s all about getting the maximum amount of ‘useful work’ out of whatever force your arrow carries, and squandering as little as possible on ‘non-productive’ work. This is achieved by assembling the best possible combination of penetration-enhancing factors.

Assuming that arrow flight is equally well-tuned for the arrows used in both test sequences discussed here, but not having all the dimensions before me for Mr. Lefemine’s arrow setup I can’t compare some features, such as any possible ferrule-diameter/shaft-diameter ratio differences. However, some arrow features can be logically compared.

I don’t have the mechanical advantage (MA) for the broadhead used in the Mozambique testing, but the photos are available to examine. There’s little doubt the MA of the Muzzy 2 blade broadhead used is less than 1/2 that of the Modified Grizzly’s. There’s also a marked difference in the ferrule taper and fade-in between the Muzzy and that of the Grizzly, with a clear advantage in both ferrule MA and ‘smoothness’ going to the Grizzly. The FOC difference would be a big force-saving advantage for the Study’s penetration-enhanced arrow, both at impact and once the bone(s) was breached. The Modified Grizzly’s single-bevel bone-splitting advantage would also have conserved a substantial amount of the available arrow force in breaching the heavy bones.

Remember that each force-saving penetration factor is compounded by each of the other force saving factors; and the same is true for each force-squandering factor. The outcome arrow penetration is not a sum of the improvement yielded by each of the penetration enhancing factors, it is the product of them. Each factor’s influence on the arrow’s penetration, whether good or bad, must be multiplied by the influence of each of the other factors.

The larger the game you hunt, or the lighter the poundage of the bow you use, the more important it becomes to maximize your arrow’s potential. The outcomes from these comparable tests are a dramatic example of the potential gains that you can obtain in terminal arrow performance, merely by maximizing the penetration potential of your arrow. Within reason, it is rarely the bow used that determines the outcome. Once it is launched, it’s all about the arrow.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Elephant with a bow #42932

Pascal, really glad to see you here.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: opinions on X Block broadhead sharpener #42054

Vance, after it arrives, if you have ANY problems or questions at all when using your new KME do give Ron a call. Heck, you should call him anyway, problem or not; quarantee you’ll enjoy talking to him. Ron is simply one of the truly good guys, and a real wealth of broadhead sharpening knowledge.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: opinions on X Block broadhead sharpener #41803

For those sharpening challanged, the KME is, hands down, the best I’ve ever seen. I’ve always been gifted at sharpening, and can sharpen most anything by any method, but I find myself using the KME more and more, just because it’s so darned simple and fast. I use the knife sharpening model on single-bevels, but also have the broadhead version, which works great on the double-bevels.

Perhaps the very best thing about using the KME is that Ron is only a phone call away. He’s THE MAN when it comes to sharpening and, if you do have problems learning to use his sharpeners he’ll talk you through it, step by step … with the right information!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Reminder: Pigs can hurt you! #40728

About three decades ago I hunted with a fellow in Tennessee who got charged by a modest-size European-cross boar, after he’d arrowed it. The hog cornered him against a tree and a downed log, and ripped the medial aspect (between the legs) of his right leg from mid-calf to mid-thigh (along with inflicting a number of smaller wounds on both legs). The fellow was carrying a Ruger Blackhawk .357, and emptied all six rounds into the boar with the barrel literally touching the pig’s chest. Only after the last round did the hog stop its attack, stagger away several yards and go down. Can’t remember exactly how many stitches the injuries required at the hospital, but remember it was a couple of hundred.

After it was all over the fellow’s only comment was, “I’m damned glad that pig wasn’t any taller!”

Yep, hogs can be dangerous. Though I’ve done nearly all of my bowhunting without any backup gun on me, I don’t move all that quickly anymore. Today, given the option, I’ll pack a heavy caliber handgun when hunting hogs. I’m doing all I can to assure I’ll be around for a few more years of hunting! However, one word of caution: If you’re not truly proficient with a handgun, you’re probably better off (and safer) carrying a hatchet or a hammer!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: I'm new here #33166

Okay, Ray, I got busy and put together a copy of both the Field Record Data Sheet and Blood Trail Data Sheet, along with the instruction sheets/protocols for completing them, and emailed them. They should show up somewhere on the Arrow Lethality Forum pretty soon.

Ed

[Author]

Posts