Help with penetration

[Dr. Ed Ashby]

Charles, that wasn't with "arrows such as described". And that's the point. Most commonly used arrow setups won't penetrate the heavy bones of a whitetail ... but there are ones that will.

Ed

[L82HUNT]

Originally posted by charles m:
 

Originally posted by Dr. Ed Ashby:
So, Jason, are you suggesting that arrows such as described won't reliable break out the heavy bones of a deer size animal? If so, on what data do you base that conclusion?

Ed

For a start, the originator of this thread. [/b]

The originator of this thread did not have a very well made AShby arrow.  Only having a singlebevel does not qualify.  Way to much aluminum, not enough arrow weight.

[Richie Nell]

Jason,

I ask you again;

"Jason, what bow/arrow setup do you use that is better and more lethal on big bones than what is recommended in Dr. Ed's reports? And where can I get a setup just like it?"

[Jason R. Wesbrock]

Originally posted by Dr. Ed Ashby:


Nowhere in the Study Updates (to date) will you see the word "guarantee", nor will you find one implied (relative to the topic at hand).

True; nowhere in the Study Updates. But if telling people that there is "no reason to fear the bones of the shoulder", and "no reason not to aim directly on the shoulder", isn't at least an implied guarantee, then we're well into the deep end of the semantics pool.

[Richie Nell]

George,

I ask you again:

George,
I appreciate your response to my questions. If you would answer the first question;


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all assuming that any arrow ladams shoots is well tuned with a sharp broadhead...that is a given. It may actually NOT have been the case but we don't know that but for the question below...it was.

Explain to me why ladams WOULD NOT have been better off and increased his chances of killing that deer had he used a heavier arrow with high FOC. Why would he NOT have improved his chances?

[Gordon martiniuk]

Thanks Dr,ED you about summed it up if they would only open there mind to try some diffrent set ups as in EFOC and heavy arrows they woud be pleasently suprized at the good results! I went to heavy arrows a long time ago and aim at the shoulders of Deer and Moose and almost allways get passthroughs and recover far more animals as I did before I switched to heavy arrows  

[Guru]

Originally posted by Jason R. Wesbrock:
 

Originally posted by Dr. Ed Ashby:


Nowhere in the Study Updates (to date) will you see the word "guarantee", nor will you find one implied (relative to the topic at hand).

True; nowhere in the Study Updates. But if telling people that there is "no reason to fear the bones of the shoulder", and "no reason not to aim directly on the shoulder", isn't at least an implied guarantee, then we're well into the deep end of the semantics pool. [/b]

Very true!

[Orion]

I don't have a horse in this race, yet.  However, I try to keep an open mind about new research.  (And Dr. Ed's research is true research.  It follows the scientific method and the methodology is sound.)  I would make one observation about this discussion.  Dr. Ed has shot hundreds of arrows into critters big and small, alive and dead.  The results (not opinion) have shown that an EFOC, single bevel, well flying arrow penetrates better, particularly when bone is hit, than  standard/common set-ups in use today.  Those who contest these results haven't offered one example of this set up failing to perform as stated for them.

[Dr. Ed Ashby]

Jason, now let's not go taking things out of context. The FULL quote is: "When using such an arrow setup there is no reason to fear the bones of the shoulder, should you hit one, and therefore no reason not to aim directly on the shoulder, reducing the likelihood of either a single lung hit or a hit too far back."

The omitted parts of the quote are the most important ones! You make it sound as though I said "aim directly at the shoulder bones". That may be what you heard, but it's not what I said.

Where is there a big problem with aiming at the shoulder? Everyone seems quick to say that, if you hit the scapula you've miss all the vitals anyway. Then they post a schematic showing that the scapula well forward of the shoulder when the deer is standing in a leg-straight-down position. So, if the vitals are not directly beneath the scapula what is in the shoulder, between skin and the thorax? Nothing other than meat and ribs.

Please consider that all the true antelope species have vital areas so far forward that a shot hitting back of the shoulder is either a hit right on the diaphragm or back of the diaphragm. No one screams about aiming at the shoulder on the African antelopes, and plenty of folks on this site have been there and hunted them, using that type of aiming point . Almost everyone supports aiming right at the shoulder of pigs, and they have bones heavier than deer. So what's the big bugaboo with aiming at the shoulder of a whitetail or mule deer? Is there a problem passing along information on an aiming spot that will reduce the number of both one-lung hits and hits too far back? Is there a problem with passing along information on arrow setups that have demonstrated the ability VASTLY improve the likelihood of penetrating the shoulder bones IF they happen to be hit?

Ed

[Ladams]

Guys I have read very little of Dr Ashbys reports untill this debat flared up.
The last two days I have read alot of his study,
he aint no dummy. what he puts on paper is tried and tru. I dont see any way you can argue with his results because thats what they are is resaults,,,,NOT OPINON
LA

[ChuckC]

Ed  thanks for writing.  I think that Jason, myself and others are not so awful concerned about breaking bones.   We read your stuff and it is great.  No doubt.  

There is a lot of thought, however, that is is more of a likely scenario to hit further back than further forward. Sure any sharp stick thru the animal with the CORRECT FOLLOW UP and a fairly skilled tracker will result in a finding.   There is a problem there... actually two.

Read the posts,  every single year we have post after post of people who make bad hits.  I really wish they would keep them to themselves actually and not broadcast the data, but that is just my opinion.  

Not everybody here is as qualified, as skilled, as able, has as much perserverence etc etc etc, as a few posting here.  If every one of us had this ability we would be getting none of those posts.

Having a large, very sharp broadhead appears (anecdotecally at least) to allow the possibility of a better... more followable blood trail, then that of a narrow bone buster.  At least for the crowd that is not born to the trail.

I guarantee you that for me, the trails I have had using three bladed heads far surpass those that I have had using two blade heads. .  no question.   Some others here apparently have seen the same trend.

It is another point of view.  One that at least seems reasonable.

ChuckC

[Terry Green]

Sorry, I gotta draw the line somewhere....

TradGang will NOT condone the encouragement of purposely  taking shoulder blade shots on big game animals.