Trad Gang
Main Boards => Dangerous Game => Topic started by: Ontario Longbow on January 14, 2006, 08:08:00 PM
-
With his latest study has Dr. Ashby rated or ranked broadheads? In his first study the Grizzley was the best performer with several others doing Ok to poor. Does anyone know Stos was tested? Thanks ,, Frank.
-
I just read a report in an Australian bowhunting mag that was very interesting. He found that any of the regular two blade broadheads improved significantly when you put a "tanto" tip on them (look at the Stinger). However, the Grizzley was still king. He had some very cool photos of bones and how they split. The single edge of the Grizzley, pointing in different directions (like an "S") seemed to tear the bone which opens it up better for penetration. The double edged heads cut a slit that may pinch the blade and shaft more resulting in less penetration. Also, he found that you need to have the fletching rotate in the same direction as the cut of the Grizzley heads. If it was opposite, there would be less penetration. It was very interesting and perhaps, the guys who cut the angle down on the Grizzleys are making a mistake.
-
He's got a lot of stuff going on including broadhead durability, can't go into details but he's finding some interesting stuff and some ways to improve them. Don't know when it will be published....O.L.
-
Dr. Ashby rules. Had a broadhead mfg. who I will not mention arguing with me the other day about penatration. He was saying Doc's tests were not conclusive. His head would penetrate better thru wood, steel drums and tires better than a cut on impact head. Then he said :knothead:
-
If I may be so bold-Dr. Ashby's reports AREN'T conclusive. I think that you'll find him readily admitting that-the test samples are too small and the variables too large. What Doc is finding are trends. Statistically it is possible that the trends from small samples are aberrations but the PROBABILITY is that they are valid indicators. Some of Dr. Ashby's reasoning has flaws IMO but overall he is doing us a great service by attempting to document actual results and find trends in how broadheads function.
-
Tree man, it's good you pointed that out as many look at them as being difinitive. As his numbers grow, the aberrations will average themselves out. The good stuff will be his numbers on what % certain arrow/broadhead combinations achived double lung hits. When we see these discussions there's always some yahoo points to 1 success with a 300 grain warp 9 arrow and an expandable working on this or that. What we need to know is how often we can expect a combination to work. 50% won't cut it, no pun intended! :) .....O.L.
-
To me it seems like he thinks 3 blades are inferior. But it is my honest openion that a wensel woodsman or snuffer is far superior to any 2 blade head out there. It opens up a better wound channel and its impossible for fat to plug up holes and leave no blood like happens with a 2 blade.
-
Frank, you need to remember that he is doing penetration testing on some of the hardest targets there are for bowhunting as far as penetration is involved. For probably 95% of all of the bowhunting done his suggestions while valid, are overkill and then some!! I think you would be much better off shooting a Moose with a Snuffer most of the time over his modified Grizzly that is only 7/8th" wide. If I was hunting water or cape buffalo I would follow his advice to the letter but with most animals it isn't necessary. I shot an Eland in South Africa last summer with an 800 grain arrow that had a 2 blade trade point on the front of it that was 1 1/8th wide. The arrow went through the meaty part of the on side shoulder, cut a rib, through the heart, between ribs on the far side, and into the oppisite shoulder! I thought that was pretty good on a 1500 pound animal! Several other hunters that I met in Africa while I was there that were shooting compounds and where using Montec G5 broadheads and Razorcaps got complete pass thru's on Eland, Kudu, and Gemsbuck. I think Dr. Ashby is doing very valuable work that is very relivent for all bowhunters. That being said I think that there is room for trade off's when it comes to most bowhunting situations! Joseph
-
Yes his work is great. BUT
7/8th wide is illegal to hunt with here in AK anyways. Its a 1" minumum.
I remember when my dad shot a deer right through the shoulder blade with a sharp bodkin. It was with a 2113 and a 60lb bow. It went through and lodged in the opposite leg and killed the deer dead. That was a treestand shot at more than 20 yards. We also liked to shoot at deer straight down. It was a spine, lung, and heart. Or a lung and heart only shot. More than 20 New Jersey and Michigan deer have died "perfectly" from those shots from my dads hands.
But what his tests do is give you an idea of 2 blade broadheads. The real question is would a 2 blade of the same width kill faster than a 3 blade in the boiler room or marginal shot? I think not..
-
Good post and observations Joseph. Frank, I've used both 2 and 3 blade and you're correct, of equal width a 3 blade will do more damage if a total pass through occures. No doubt for the same reason 3 blades do more damage they'll also penetrate less, especially if bone is involved. 2 blades are more likely to glance off solid bone, 3 blades sharpened to the tip won't "glance" they "dig" and lock into the bone. Don't get me wrong, I like my 3 blades but I'm aware of their limitations and select my shots accordingly....O.L.
-
yeah I see what your saying. But we dont have problems smashing deer bones.
On elk moose and bears there is only the ribs I am willing to put an arrow through.
Smaller things like deer. I dont worry about things like shoulders. But yes I still go for right behind the leg.
It just shows that no 3 blade broadhead has killed a deer after a scapula hit. Spine hit or any other hit. But I am wondering how many other people have spine shot a deer or anything for that matter with a 3 blade with success.
-
I'm looking for your opinions,, I love the Stos 160, I have a bear hunt for this September, would the Magnus 160 be a better choice for a (controlled??) 10 - 14 yard shot a a bear vs the Stos,, Thanks ,,Frank. P.S I've had pass throughs on several occasions with both heads on deer,, but what about bear?
-
Hi Frank,
To be honest I can't see a lot of difference between the Stos and Magnus. Both are great heads. If you love the Stos, no reason to switch. On a different note, I've shot a few bears with my bows and have had the best blood trail with a Woodsman. Good luck come September and be sure to post pics!
Stan
-
Frank, FYI the stos is made by Magnus. I saw this personally when I toured the Magnus facility in February. Not only does Magnus make the Stos, but the Wensel Woodsman as well. It is amazing how many broadheads that Magnus makes in their little facility in Kansas. The people there were very helpful and friendly.
-
Hi East Coast Archer,, Thanks for the info, I wasn't trying to imply that one had better quality charactoristics. Both are excellent broadheads and however they have different designs. The Stos have a longer and narrower profile closer to the 3:1 ratio. The Magnus 160 is shorter and wider at 1 1/2". I've taken several deer with both heads. I really wanted to know if on a bear which is considerably wider than a deer if one would be better,, Thanks ,, Frank
-
It's all relative. I don't consider hunting whitetails with a 55# @ 28" draw an issue with just about any 2,3 or 4 blade you want. The penetration is just not going to be the issue. NOW, when I set my son up with a 37# @ 25inch draw bow to hunt whitetail, the broadhead principles discussed by Dr. Ashby come into play.
The closer you get to marginal set-ups for the game pursued, the more you need to look at the most efficient tools.
-
Excellent point Ray. Matching your arrows and broadheads & draw weight/draw length to the game being hunted is a great thing to do. Congrats on hunting with your son!
John
-
Thats very true. But there is nothing you cant shoot in north america with a 55# bow and 3 blades. Not only just shoot them but get a better blood trail.
-
Frank, you and Ray both make total sense. However, many people who buy bows don't or can't shoot 55#. Those are the folks who need to pay special attention to Ed's work - especially if they are hunting Alaska Yukon moose or brown bear or something else that's (much, much) larger than a whitetail deer.
In Ray's excellent example of his son who is shooting 37# @ 25" at whitetails, he needs to think along the same lines as someone who is shooting 60# @ 28" at cape buffalo. Maximizing penetration for those folks at the margin is a good thing. As you so correctly point out, most of us don't need to worry about it. But on the margin Ed's work is very helpful.
John
-
Yes it is helpfull for the two blade shooters.
But the clear point I am getting across is that three blades kill better and faster. Expecially on a hit further back. Now if you hit the shoulder bone with a two or three blade with the minnimul setup.
There is where you have an issue.
What would you rather get shot by? A 7/8th inch grizzly this guy talks up so much. Or a 160 snuffer.
-
Frank,
No argument on the 160 snuffer causing damage. As I mentioned earlier, for my son and his closer to marginal set-up, I want all the things I can get in his favor to get a two hole wound (no bottom exit from a treestand can make for a tough to non-existant blood trail). This includes skinny carbon arrows, high performance 6 strand 450+ bow string, perfect arrow flight, 12 grain per pound arrow weight, whisper quiet bow and of course a two blade narrow Zwickey Eskimo's with back sharpened blades . His shot angle based on his 15 yard range limit is going to make for a thicker body cavity section to get through than if he were broadside on the ground.
I personally use a 3 blade Razorcap and it's an outstanding head and great for blood trails and creating havoc. However, I want to make sure that my sons arrow penetrates both lungs at a minimum, even if hitting a rib bone. Thus a narrow two blade head and the other items mentioned above are the recipe of choice for his set-up.
-
Frank AK:
You claim that '3 blades kill better and faster'. What is your evidence?
Dr. Ashby's evidence involves carefully analyzed shots on many hundreds of animals over a number of years. Most were on much larger and tougher game than the smaller deer species. But moose, elk and caribou can be large and tough, too, as can bear.
His work is far and away the most extensive and thorough on the subject of broadhead lethality. We should be cautious in disregarding it.
-
John, when you say "he needs to think along the same lines as someone who is shooting 60# @ 28" at cape buffalo" that's an unreal example right? I don't think you're allowed to do that...I think the limit in most african countries is about 80# and a KE of 80 ft.lbs according to Safari Bowhunting Consultants.
-
Originally posted by longbowguy:
Frank AK:
You claim that '3 blades kill better and faster'. What is your evidence?
Millions of deer cant be wrong.
Are you saying that a 2 blade in the heart/lung would kill better than a 3 blade in the same heart lung area?
Give me a break. Like the old saying says... I was born at night. But not last night.
-
Sorry if I sounded rash..
But be reasonable. Like the 45# minnimum draw weight a lot of places require for deer. So you can use better killing equipment like the snuffers and wensel woodsmans.
-
Frank... A sharp broadhead in the vitals of any animal will kill it cleanly and neither multiblade or two blade will do it BETTER or quicker for that matter.
Getting that broadhead into the vitals deep is the issue and Dr. Ashby's studies suggest getting it to poke completely through the animal is important to clean kills.
I don't always agree with everything Dr.Ed says, but I do respect his vast experience... which far preceeds your birth at night, 17 years ago.
-
pucci,
yes, that was a hypothetical example. Sorry if it was misleading since I certainly would not want to hunt cape buffalo with a bow that was 60# @ 28". However, if I HAD to do so I'd darned sure want to maximize my penetration potential a la Ed's studies.
John
-
Originally posted by Frank AK:
Originally posted by longbowguy:
Frank AK:
You claim that '3 blades kill better and faster'. What is your evidence?
Millions of deer cant be wrong.
Are you saying that a 2 blade in the heart/lung would kill better than a 3 blade in the same heart lung area?
Give me a break. Like the old saying says... I was born at night. But not last night. [/b]
Ed Ashby's study was all about getting the broadhead into the animal, not about what it did once it was in there. All the huge wound causing potential of any head is worth naught if it doesn't get to the vital tissue.
With my 55# longbow I will be sticking with the 2 bladed heads without a doubt.
-
Well as my last post on this thread. I will say I know for what I am doing 3 blade heads are the best way to go.
That means moose, bear, and carabou.
-
Millions of deer cant be wrong.
That means moose, bear, and carabou
There seems to be a few hundred pounds of difference between your first quote and your second. I just have one question to ask respectfully, I might add. How many Moose, Bear, and Caribou have you killed with these three balde heads you mention. Dr Ashby is always needing help with his research. Email me and I'll pass along his contact info. Thanks for any help you may be in the future research. CK
-
I have never had a bear or moose stop a snuffer!I guess as long as you modify the heads the doc talks about and shoot 800-900 gr. arrows you will do OK.But if you don't shoot the heavy arrows this must change things drastically I would think.
-
As stated already, the good doctor's report is geared towards examining PENETRATION! Should be very clear that 2 blade heads will out-penetrate 3 blade heads. This is not a knock on 3 blade heads, as I am a big Snuffer user for whitetails. BUT, when I chase elk and bears, the quiver will have 2 blade Magnus heads in it. Use what you have confidence in.
BTW, thanks to the Dr. for all of his fine work. I continue to learn from him all the time.
Dan
-
IMHO a 2blade is better in most, if not all instances. Even on whitetails, I am concerned about bone hits. Consider the non-trad hunter Gary Borger (sp?). He shoots an 80# compound bow. I watched him hit the shoulder bone of a whitetail buck once and he got aweful penetraton. I know this is only one instance, but thats enough to make me use 2blades. I honestly believe that a 2blade hit deer will not run as far as one hit with a 3blade because with a 2blade, they don't feel the hit so much. One of the best arcguments for 2blade heads came from Markus of German Kinetics. Here is a link if interested. http://perfectbowkill.com/html/broadheads.html
-
BTW, Gary was using a 3blade fixed blade head. I believe it was made by NAP.
-
While I agree with using 2 blades for better penetration when you don't have enough bow, I think some of you need to stop and consider what you are saying.
I am testing 2 blade broadheads on deer of all sizes and a buddy of mine switched after he became involved in traditional hunting. He has been using two blades when hunting with both longbow and compound for a few years now.
Based on my experiances and his to date I can tell you there is a big difference between 2, 3, and 4 blade kills and the time it takes deer to expire on simular hits.
Even with modern bows and equipment it is pretty well known what works best on whitetails. Many local guides will not let people use 2 blade broadheads due to all the issues they have had trying to recover animals. When hunting from the ground as I do this is greatly amplfied.
With that said I know 2 blade will work and they can get the job done very quickly on perfect hits. However, physics dictate that 3 and 4 blade broadheads will get the job done quicker when penetration is equal, hit are in the same place, and both arrows exit. To believe otherwise is misguided.
I believe Dr. Ashbys are valuable and have a place in bow hunting. I also know from studieds conducted on simular issues regarding handgun caliber and ammunition types there will be all levels of understanding by hunters and attempts to apply the information incorrectly. It is hard for some of us to understand exactly what the data he provides tells us. As noted above it only aplied to one factor on a limited range of animals. To try and apply this across the board would do an injustice to all of Dr. Ashby's hard work.
-
Does anyone know the calcium content of the buff bones compaired to Deer?
-
I hit that black bear in the shoulder blade and smashed it.
Ive seen carabou killed with snuffers and it puts a magnificent hole in it.
I am trying to stay away from the thread. But I want to let people know a three blade will kill better with the marginal shot.
I should have taken pictures of the blood trail my bear left. I guarantee you wouldent get that trail with a 2 blade.
-
Curt, if we ever get a chance to get together I could show you 5 photo albums full of big game killed with Snuffers that folks sent us over the years, stuff in there from rabbits to moose. Lots of animals in the caribou and up size. The biggest are AK moose, maybe 10-12 of them and bison, maybe half a dozen. Of course that's all anecdotal and there are no specifics beyond maybe bow poundage. I think guys get too fired up about this stuff, on both ends of the spectrum. Ed's work is interesting, and useful when taken in context. The key is to keep it in context. "One size fits all" no more applies to broadheads than it does to bow poundage.
Ryan
-
Dr. Ashby isn't testing to see which broadheads are the “best killers”, that’s not quantifiable. He's testing the one thing that he can quantifiably test, arrow penetration. According to his results it looks as though it is consistent that two blade broadheads will penetrate further into animal flesh and bone than three or four blade heads. What you do with the results, if anything, is up to you.
It was stated above "physics dictate that 3 and 4 blade broadheads will get the job done quicker when penetration is equal, hit are in the same place, and both arrows exit. To believe otherwise is misguided." That in my opinion is 100% correct. But again the key phrase is "when penetration is equal".
Just my thoughts.
-Seven
-
And how many buffalo are 26 inches thick?
His 94lb longbow shooting 680gr arrows 180fps?
Sounds more like a 60 lb bow to me maybee less. It could have been his bow wasnt very proficient.
Take a look at the entry hole on the thread for my black bear. Thats a 145gr snuffer ENTRY hole. The exit hole had so much blood and gory stuff in it I diddnt take a picture. The bear squirted blood 3 feet on both sides of him. Just gushing and puddles. With a 2 blade you wouldent get that kind of trail I guarantee.
-
I think Dr. Ashby's info is invaluable. There are pro's and con's for each B-head depending on the animal and situation. I use 2, 3, and 4 blades depending on the situation. Sometimes I want lots of blood ie. a bear in thick forest. (last year) Sometimes I want better penetration and don't need as much blood. ie A buffalo in the open sage.(year before) You HAVE to tailor your head choice to the hunt. Nothing really to argue about.When a man shoots HUNDREDS and hundreds of animals you have to pay attention to his results.
-
Yes and I have. I was not saying his info is is bad. Its the BEST info I have found in a long time. The only thing that could be better is experience. And I have that.. But I will let you guys have your victory. I have been close minded and probably rood. But hopefully I got my point across.
Thanks
Frank
-
It doesn't necessarily matter what broadhead you are shooting if your arrow isn't properly tuned. An arrow that is flopping around in flight will loose a ton of energy when penetrating an animal. Also arrow diameter, arrow finish, occillation, etc plays a role as well. Let's not forget the arrow when talking about penetration of a broadhead.
Ron
-
Hmmmm! here I thought the good Dr. was trying to make penetration tests using different broadheads. His experiments were designed, so I thought, to aid the archer in choosing a broadhead that had desirable penetration on a varity of game animals and yet retained its physical properties. A universal assumption could be made that better penetration equals better killing capacity but thats all it is, an assumption. What a way to use hunting as a tax write-off. :)
-
Doc Ed's work is of value to all of us. When it's all done we'll know much more about penetration, broadhead strength and the part the arrow plays in equation.
There's much more to it than meets the eye. How we use the information is up to each of us. :thumbsup:
-
Well said Charlie. :thumbsup:
-
I always enjoy reading Doc's findings, and believe his findings to be true.
I've killed over 50 whitetails with 4 blade Zwickey Deltas, and that's what I'm still using. It works for me, ....I can't argue with a recovery rate of less than 32 yards.
But I know that's not the head for everything.
And I wouldn't go dissrespecting my elders. :saywhat:
-
I got an email from Oz way back while we were on page two of this thread. Ed says it gives him great pleasure to see guys "thinking" about all this. Ed never expected anyone to arrive at absolutes through his testing. It's only a guide bringing us all closer to the age old questions. If you aren't thinking for yourself, you are only "following" someone elses lead. There is a great deal of testing continuing to be undertaken. These tests are slowly filling in all the gaps previously left untouched. We'll have to be patient and prepare ourselves to test these upcomming findings "ourselves". :thumbsup: Thanks Doc!
-
"And I wouldn't go dissrespecting my elders."
I hope the stuff I said above doesn't come across as disrespectful to anyone, elder or not.
Things of this nature have long been an intrest of mine. I very much enjoy Dr. Ashby's work. My problem is that I know there are other things Dr. Ashby surely is going to want to test and find answer to and I know how long it takes. I don't want to wait that long! :)
I wish he had the money and manpower to answer all of his and our questions as soon as we want them. That'll never happen and I guess it does us good to have to wait of stuff now and again.
Dr. Ashby, Sir, keep up the good work!!!
-
No worries Darke. :)
-
I Don't know fellas !!?? But I have a p[roblem with a pic of a Zebra that may wiegh 700-800 lbs shot with a 94# Bow and the feathered end of the shaft is still visible. I like to draw my own conclusions on everything.After several years of Bear guiding, I see no merit in a Single Blade Head. and I saw no benefit in a single blade head on a scapula hit!! Both single and multiple blade heads penetrated about 1/2 an inch and the bears were not recovered , but lived to be shot another day!Also bow wieght made NO difference on a Scapula hit!!! 40-80 lbs, results were the same!But on a soft tissue hit the multiple blade head insured a good blood trailand a recovered Bear.Just my humble opinion.
Sergio
-
Originally posted by SERGIO VENNERI:
[QB] I Don't know fellas !!?? But I have a p[roblem with a pic of a Zebra that may wiegh 700-800 lbs shot with a 94# Bow and the feathered end of the shaft is still visible.
Where is this pic? I would like to see what you are talking about so I can see for myself if it has anything to do with the topic :)
-
That pic of the zebra was in Traditional Bowhunter. I can't remember which issue but could look it up.
Cheers,
Donavan
-
That is one of the examples I was trying to make a point about. When you read Dr. Ashby's reports it is important to understand what he is saying. The issues come about when you try to apply the data incorrectly.
One cannot assume because a combonation works well on one animal it will be the best for all. I also don't recall reading anything about time to incapacitation. Another point that needs made can given by the following example: This type of work was done for handgun ammunition. The goal was to determine what worked best/quickest more times than not. The group selected 500 animals based on size, weight, and bone structure/content to best match humans. At the end of the study there were clear winners when the caliber and ammo was used correctly under the right conditions. Law enforcement conditions were not "the right conditions" and the data had to be masaged to find the "right" answer for that application.
Issues? You bet ya!
First people didn't understand what was being said and thought because there was a clear winner under the right conditions the "winner" was best used for all applications and failures became apparent quickly.
Second folks who had Docterate degrees in Math and statistics jumped in and said 500 animals wasn't enough data points to draw conclusions from. Medical doctors concluded to many other factors also applied in real world shootings, such as mental condition, drug use, barriers, shot angle, etc. I won't bore you with all the other details and 15 years worth of data from both sides of the what worked best coin. Today there is a clear winners and indrustry trend have been set and are working very well. I also forgot to mention the fact that all 500 animals where shot in a calm state unaware of what was happening while they were connected to equipment that monitored brain activity, blood pressure, heart rate, etc.
I saod all of that to bring home this point. Dr. Ashby is breaking new ground but is only touching one very limmited area of the subject at hand. In no way can this data be used as reported on all maner of creature if one expects valid results under all conditions, for all sizes, shapes, and make up of game. All we can conclude at this point is if a combination penetrated beter in his reports most of the time it will on lesser animals. That does not mean it will kill quicker, but it probably means it is more likely to kill the animal at some time by reaching vitals.
As to the bow weight doesn't matter. I'm sure that is also true under certian conditions because today modern 50 lb bows on one model can shoot as fast as some 70 lb bows of another model. Again we must consider all factor and the speed of the bow is one one of many.
Another example to note ot Terry's Buffalo shot in Montana (I think). When one arrow fail to penetrate he used a back up arrow of a different type and it worked successfully. He could conclude the second arrow should always be used because it worked better than the first. When I review the data I see about 20 possible items that could have been different from the first shot to the last and conclude I learned almost nothing. The next go around the results could be totally different.
I just want to ask everyone to understand if anything is changed in the form of arrow size, weight, speed, type of bow, animal shot, angle of the shot, and on and on...don't be surprised if your results are different. If Dr. Ashby at some point created a list of 50 broadhead and ranked them from best to worse you would still need to take 5 from the top, middle, and low end and try them for your application(s). You would then be able to draw conclusions by reviewing your results and his and if you and I are smart enough figure out why the results are differnt and fine tune our choice. (in simple terms).
-
Originally posted by DarkeGreen:
Another example to note ot Terry's Buffalo shot in Montana (I think). When one arrow fail to penetrate he used a back up arrow of a different type and it worked successfully. He could conclude the second arrow should always be used because it worked better than the first. When I review the data I see about 20 possible items that could have been different from the first shot to the last and conclude I learned almost nothing. The next go around the results could be totally different.
Yep, at 15 yards the 2 blade glanced and deflected ....sending the arrow under the skin only 5 inches outside the rib cage.....and the Wensel Woodsman from 35 yards, on a 50 grain less arrow, burried to the fletch.
-
Terry, Was the shot angle the same for both shots? Also, did the second broadhead hit the exact spot at the same angle as the first? Just trying to gather "all" the data........ I've had both type heads do strange and unexplainable things. Although I have the utmost respect and fondness for the Wensels and those other fella's who helped design the WW, I've counted multiple failures in my own field testing of these heads. I certainly know deep down that the failures were chalked up to more than the broadhead choice. EVERY situation is individually different. The broadhead is only one part of a larger equasion. I shoot everything from Big ol' Snuffers to tiny 100 grain Grizzlies. The determining factors are the animals I will pursuit with any given set-up, bow type and draw weight, arrow type and grain weight. Without determining "all" of the criteria, I feel that I cannot come closer than a simple guess as to how my choice will perform. Even after applying all the knowledge and math, there is still a tiny margin of fait floating in a sea of hope that "any" chosen combination will perform to exacting results.
The facts are out there but without applying them to each and every situation there is absolutely no way to say in absolutes that one will out perform the other(2 blade-vs-3 blade). The only thing that can be determined is penetration and speed. Even this criteria has variables. You can't even say in absolutes if one will bleed more than the other because you could never determine if an artery would be hit or not. Sure, more cutting surfaces on a broadhead "should" equate to better odds that an artery will be hit but you or I could never get closer than a guess that it will happen. Lets say a three blade hits muscle and organs and a two blade hits muscle and organs, plus a nice fat artery. Which would then bleed more?????? The only reply to that question would be determined by pure speculation. Sure, one is "more likely" but not "positively" to arrive exacting results.
You or I could never detrmine if a rib will cause a glancing blow or if we will hit the tiny margin between ribs sending the broadhead deep. After saying all this I'll conclude with this, there is no way one man can say that a three blade head is "better" or will bleed "more" than a two blade. The absolutes just don't exist. Only speculation and odds come into play here. Good conversation going on here anyway! Keep shooting critters! It's the only thing that will ever determine anything! CK
-
littlefeather,
Your questions and/or doubts also relate directly to studies done in other areas. In the begining those very points were made to show why we can never gain the answers to our questions. However, this is where math (sample size) comes to play. When we shoot a buffalo twice with different results or two buffs with the same result, or differnt results we become confused and say we have no answers. In the handgun world a FBI database with no some 20k shootings was analized and compared to the 500 animals shot. Each shooting was reviewed to determine what applied and what didn't. An example is, any person that was shot twice had the data removed as there is no way to determine which bullet had what effect. The data was sorted by caliber and ammo type too. As the number of shootings grew trends could be found and probabilities defined. With 2 shooting the results could be the same or different. When you have 20,000 shootings and the data shows one broadhead cause a desired effect 90% of the times we can guess 90% of the time it is going to perform better than one that had a 10% rating. Make since?
Now if we have time to deaths or how long after the animal was shot did it fall off it's feets the data becomes more useful... if we care about such things. In hunting, within limits, we may not. In self defence shootings we certianly do. However let's say we do. Now we look at the data and find the 10% broadhead takes 30 minutes, the 90% takes 15 minutes but the 85% effective broadhead gets the job done in 2 minutes. Now we have choices to make depending on what is important to our application. We also need to figure out what's going on in the 5% between the 85 and the 90 effectiveness between the two. Maybe it can be explained by size of animal, what it ate, or purely shot placement. Maybe 5% of the time the shot was placed a little better in one verses the other. Maybe...that's just the way it is and nothing can explain the 5%. Still we have information to use to make informed decisions with. Maybe the answer is anything rated above 80% is a good choice so long as we do our job. We should know we always need to say away from broadheads in the under 50% range.
Bottom line is we still don't have enough information to make perfect choices based on what I've read so far. I do believe I can make a better decision if I use the data correctly. Only time and a bunch more animals stuck are going to prove if I/we made the right choice.
-
BTW, This study is long over due and I again want to say thanks to Dr. Ashby for all your hard work!!!
-
The Doc left yesterday going bush for two months. This will conclude his Buffalo testing from what he told me a couple of nights ago. Then on to smaller game and the questions everyone has been asking..... What broadhead for lil' ol' whitetails, pigs, and elk??? HeeeHeee! Keep up the theories fella's. This thinking stuff sure make it all fun!!! CK
-
Correct Curtis......I wasn't dissing the 2 blade head...and would certainly use one again on BIG big game...it was just the angle it hit along with hitting that flat spot on the rib just perfect....it would have happened in reverse.
Both shots were quartering away, and no, they didn't hit in the same place.
As I eluded to in another thread directly related...I used a 2 blade on the 1st shot because I felt that was best for that animal, and even the best laid plans can go south on ya. If I would have used the same head on the 2nd shot, I'm sure the results would have been a dead buff cause the arrow slipped between the ribs.
It was just the way the cookie crumbled this time.
-
Hi folks
Anyone knows why Dr. Ashby doesnt mention zwickey heads in his newer studies ?
Maybe he feels that he tested them enough on the old study ?
I have tested the delta with a tanto tip on fresh cattle bones along with several other heads, and I am pretty impressed with the head !
Jacob
-
51 @ 26 Robertson Peregrine, 540g Gold Tip Trad with 200g broadhead, Stos 160 + adaptor. Probably lighter then alot of Eastern bowhunters might use this has been (so far) my only non pass through deer. I've had several compound buddies tell me about arrows "bouncing out" of shoulder hit deer with their 60 lbs+ compounds and multi blade broadheads.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/4297432frank/stos1.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/4297432frank/stos2.jpg)
I whole heartedly belive in 2 blades and 2 holes. I'm going on a fall bear hunt here in Ontario,, I'm just pondering between my two favorite braodheads, Stos 160's or Magnus 160's. i don't know if the extra 1/4 inch in width will make a difference? ,, Frank
-
I agree with Ontario.
-
Different take: Thank you Dr. Ashby for demonstrating, and documenting, what Maurice Thompson, Saxton Pope and Howard Hill all said about broadheads and arrows in their books based on lifetime bowhunting in the traditional fashion. Saxton Pope actually conducted extensive field tests coparing 2-blade steel broadheads to Ishi's 2-blade obsidian broadheads, and found the obsidian's had significantly better penertration. Something like 30% more - sharp, serrated edge. See "Hunting With The Bow and Arrow" by Saxton Pope, 1923, Chapter: "Archery In General" pages 47-48 in the 2000 edition, where he also noted, (as did Howard Hill and Grizzley) that a file sharpenned head cuts through meat better than a stone shaprenned one. Funny, how all these serious field-testers keep comming up with the same answers from 1873-2006. Nah - 3-blade razor sharp HAS to be better - right?
For a definition of "traditional": Thompson, Pope and Hill suit me fine. Yet, we will always find makers, and users, who "like" their other broadheads better, and just "know" they "have" to work better. Fine, use 'em.
Almost any boradhead from a modern 50# bow will shoot through a Texas hill-country whitetail, broadside, or quartering, and chop the spine. Bigger game, and big hogs, maybe not.
The most telling results of Ashbey's report is in the greater consistency of the 2-blade broadheads in killing game from all angles and shot placements (even in the rump) due to consistently greater penetration in real hunting conditions on real game - lots of it. Read the report, then argue with it.
Frank, Ashby's report did not include any deer, as we would think of deer. I've spine-shot deer with a light aluminum arrow and a fragile 3-blade thunderhead. Dropped the deer, at 15 yards, but I had to finish it with a heart shot.
Ashby's report also showed the 2-blade's penetration got more through shots for better blood trails. I like blood trails.
Last year, I used MA-3's. One tough solid 3-blade head. Shot several through deer, one full-length body shot (chest hit), at 29 yards (70# Wesley Special - 600 gr. cedar arrow, 3-blade 125 gr. MA-3. It can be done.
Then I used a Magnus snuffer. Thing makes an heck of a lot of noise! compared to the solid MA-3 3-blade, and the solid 2-blades. I don't like noisy arrows. Last thing I want is my deadly flesh-cutter whisleing at the deer on the way there. Never shot another snuffer.
So, I use 2-blade MA-2's (economy) and Grizzlies ( pricey) - with confidence. Go Ashbey!
That's what I think, but try 'em and make up your own mind.
-
OK, I read all of Asbey's reports, including the latest where he stresses using shaving sharp, honed blades for asiatic buff fiberous hides, and not the file-sharpenned ones. Interesting.
It's great to have a resource like him to help us get it right, and compare our own firld results. Looks like there is a lot of variation in BH tpye for the dangerous game we are after.
So, I take it back, there's surely room for great, consistnet 3-blade effectivelness on dangerous game that isn't a cape buff or asiatic buff - like bears.
I'll buy Frank's experience with bears.
-
I have a question. My wife shoots a 40#compound. I have been experiencing with arrow weight, and her lighter arrows are penetrating equally if not more than the heavier arrow. Could this be because the dramatic decrease in velocity with the heavier arrow? please help
-
Originally posted by liteandsirens:
I have a question. My wife shoots a 40#compound. I have been experiencing with arrow weight, and her lighter arrows are penetrating equally if not more than the heavier arrow. Could this be because the dramatic decrease in velocity with the heavier arrow? please help
It could be, but without knowing the full details we'd just be making a guess. A few things that could be the reason(s): if you are using the same weight point the FOC on the lighter arrow will be higher. If the lighter arrow is thinner it might penetrate more. If the points are a different profile (one a field tip the other something like a bullet tip) the penetration will be different. And don't forget that penetration with a broadhead will be different then with a field tip, so the heavy arrow might penetrate better with than the light arrow once broadheads are installed. I'm not sure I've solved your problem but that should give you some material to think about.
-Seven
-
FrankAK: I've shot several deer in the spine and shoulder with three blade heads (Muzzy, Montec); killed 'em deader than doornails, but I was shooting compounds with ACC 3-60's at about 280fps. Shot one deer at 30 yards quartering to me dead in the shoulder joint and found the arrow buried to the fletchings in the ground on the other side. Also shot a 200lb hog straight down through the spine with a Thunderhead; killed him, but it didn't exit the breastbone. However, I have no doubt that 2-blades work better out of traditional bows, although I might shoot Montecs out of my recurve at deer this year.
-
FrankAK: I've shot several deer in the spine and shoulder with three blade heads (Muzzy, Montec); killed 'em deader than doornails, but I was shooting compounds with ACC 3-60's at about 280fps. Shot one deer at 30 yards quartering to me dead in the shoulder joint and found the arrow buried to the fletchings in the ground on the other side. Also shot a 200lb hog straight down through the spine with a Thunderhead; killed him, but it didn't exit the breastbone. However, I have no doubt that 2-blades work better out of traditional bows, although I might shoot Montecs out of my recurve at deer this year.