Broadhead choice, dead is dead.

[owlbait]

I am stupid is as stupid does. Steve can you define anecdotal for me? I don't see Ashby's reports as "exact" science but I think calling it anecdotal makes it seem much less useful then it truly is. I certainly see arrow lethality as being pertinent to my deer hunting as I see a personal need to increase penetration from my set-up. I don't worship his findings, I have spent the time to read them and try to relate parts of them to what I use.

[Bullfrog 1]

I recently with more time and money on my hands(so my wife says) Shot sveral heads into/at concrete. The only head NOT damaged including Zwickey and Magnus was the Ace standard. This even surprised ME but guess what will be on the end of my arrows. No, I am not hunting concrete but it is about confidence.  BILL

[BradLantz]

I use to think the same thing.

but .....

I've lost a couple of animals with my longbow/recurve and it was due to lack of penetration because of high rib bones hit. I know, shot placement wasn't perfect, but I firmly believe a more powerful bow propelling those same shot and same shots would have given me a couple of very nice P&Y whitetails instead of lost animals.

so, could a 650-700 grain, heavily FOC loaded arrow from the SAME bow with a 190 El Grande on the tip have given me enough extra ummmpfhhh to have killed those animals ?

I don't know, AShby's reports tell me maybe and folks, I'll spend $100 on heads and adapters and whatever if theres a chance it would. It might make me a sucker for gimmicks, but so be it

[DaleinOhio]

Mark Baker...you nailed it!  Well put!

As for those who say that Ashby's finding are on much tougher African game, well I have this to say:  if our set-ups could take down tougher African game, then they sure as hell will take down a whitetail!  That's a big confidence booster for me and we all know having confidence in our rig is a major plus.  Sure it's probably overkill, but you wouldn't think so when you find that deer that you made a marginal shot on and were afraid you had lost.

[Naphtali]

Originally posted by VTer:
First let me say I respect Dr Ashby's use of science in determining the best all around broadhead design. Now I see that manufacturers are trying to copy and/or improve the Grizzly and the hordes are flocking to buy them. I understand the science says the design gives you the best chance at making meat, so why are we not using rifles and compounds. I will stick with the broadheads I'm using now, because I like the way they sharpen. I think that's the bottom line.

Actually, dead may not be the "dead" you intend. Dead within 50 yards is not the same as dead three hours after the shot two miles away. It appears that Ed Ashby's broadhead research is intended to improve the likelihood of the more desirable "dead." Adrenalized venison is not particularly tasty.

Just some thoughts.

[Dave Lay]

I know I have killed a couple deer in the past few years that the shot was not perfect but due to excellent penetration of my set up the arrow did get into vitals I really dont think a lighter set up would have. This is where we need to look at the basics of what Dr. Ed is telling us and apply it to our specific hunting

[VTer]

First of all, let me apoligize for being the "first" guy on Pow wow ever to express "my" opinion. I didn't mean to diminish Dr. Ashby's findings and I beleive I started out by saying that. My point was about broadheads, and only broadheads. I'm a big beleiver in heavy shafts, heavy poundage, waiting for the right shot to deliver a well tuned arrow. I guess my point was the lemming like following to make or buy all kinds of Grizzly-like broadheads. It's been awhile since I read the Ashby report but I don't remember anything on the test parameters of broadhead "sharpness", which was my origional point.

[laddy]

I make single chamfer Hill's because I can get much sharper than regular Hills.  Some have trouble with the Griz, it takes a straight and consistent stroke with a file and then touch up with a diamond hone or just rip it with the corner of the file.  I always liked Dead Heads because of the edge I could get and the penetration that they gave.

[Tree man]

I probably have come across as an Ashby detractor in some of my posts. I actually DO appreciate his research and think that there are things to be learned and applied from his testing. My problems with the Ashby reports are twofold. 1. Despite his elaborate explanation on the superiority of 3/1 ration heads Dr. Ashby failed to prove such superiority. His tabulated results may show penetration superiority of single bevel narrow cut heads compared to wide double bevel heads but that is about all that the limited data can be said to indicate. I think Howard Hill was a great archer but his 3/1 broadhead length/width ratio advice has been oft accepted and repeated but every independent attempt to prove it better than 2/1 (or 1.75/1) heads has failed to show any such superiority.
2.Dr.Ashby himself takes his findings on heavy game and attempts to postulate minimum numbers for all game. Some readers of the Ashby reports go even more bonkers on what everyone MUST do to be responsible in their bowhunting.
Sorry, I reject that.
 I'll be taking some left Single bevel heads hunting this year. I hope to see some notable difference in performance compared to my dbl bevel heads. If I do I won't be shy about sharing that anecdotal evidence. On the other hand- I have killed, seen killed or heard  stories from trustworthy sources etc. on enough high/medium/low poundage bow, light/medium /heavy arrow, dbl bevel, file sharpened only/ honed edges, long head/short head, narrow head /wide head to know that everything works(and everything fails).

[bm22]

treeman i think you are right, every head fails and every head works, the idea is to get a head that works more than if fails, and i think that i the point of ashbys test, to eliminate as many of the undesirable traits in a broad head and make it more efficient.

ie the exact same head but one has vents, his studies suggest that a vented broadhead will not penetrate as well as a unvented broadhead.

 and on and on until you have eliminated as many of the undesirable traits as possible, it is just his test seem to be going in the direction of the grizzly broadhead.

is the grizzly perfect absolutely not, i would like to see the ferule taper farther into the head like the STOS, i would also like to see the grizzly teflon coated and wider.

why is the 3 to 1 better ? because basic physics says it's better, look up the machines in your junior high science book, the lever, pulley and inclined plane.  

a broadhead is an inclined plane, that means that if you divide its lenght by its height "width" you get a mechanical advantage. the higher the mechanical advantage the more "work" you can do with as little force or effort. the higher the MA the more the broadhead is going to penetrate compared to a like designed head. FACT

[James Wrenn]

Well I already shoot two holes in everything. If someone can come up with a way to get three in them instead of two I am all ears.  :D   Untill then I am not changeing to a little skinny broadhead to try and twist my deer in half.    .

[Tree man]

Originally posted by bm22:


why is the 3 to 1 better ? because basic physics says it's better, look up the machines in your junior high science book, the lever, pulley and inclined plane.  

a broadhead is an inclined plane, that means that if you divide its lenght by its height "width" you get a mechanical advantage. the higher the mechanical advantage the more "work" you can do with as little force or effort. the higher the MA the more the broadhead is going to penetrate compared to a like designed head. FACT

Fallacy! Mechanical advantage is real and useful physics but the inclined plane(s) that matter in a broadhead are at the cutting edges. If the purpose of a broadhead was to wedge tissue apart based upon the length to width ratio of the blades then the whole "mechanical advantage" argument would be meaningful but the edges are supposed to be slicing tissue. If 3/1 is so much better why not 6/1.... 10/1.... 28/1? Make the whole arrow a broadhead(maybe that should be called a skinnyhead?) and let the blades serve as fletching. (Of course that would require a special launcher type rest.) I actuall expect to see someon try to market that at some point but besides a tendency towards biasing the weight to the rear such a design would also tend to be weak andfriction on the large amounts of flat surface would probably impair penetration.

I am not one to worship engineers(after all some of them are such duds that they will place wear items on equipment in locations that require total disassembly to replace them!) but it is interesting to note that most broadheads designed by engineers wind up with less than a 2/1 ratio. Similar ratio heads comprise the bulk of the trad broadhead market and have been used since prehistory on every game animal on earth. If 3/1 heads of equal sharpness  actually prove superior that would be noteworthy. Kudos to Harry Elburg in designing a 3/1 head that overcomes the fragility problems that plague such designs but that it penetrates any better due to its length/width ratio remains unproven.

[monterey]

Reading through this entire thread, I get the impression that some posters have not read the reports or have merely skimmed them or not read the most recent updates.

I've read the entire set of reports through twice and took much from those readings.  To say it's not science is not entirely correct.  To say it's perfect or even great science is not correct either, but to willfully ignore the results is, IMO, foolish.

His research is not simply about how to kill a buff, but rather what will work best on the tougher animals out there.  I think it's signicicant that as the better attributes of a good arrow combo are refined it is necessary to go to a lighter bow to test them even on the tougher game animals.

Next season I'll be hunting with a 14 year old for mule deer and maybe elk.  His bow will most likely be a 46# straight limb bow.  You can bet he will be shooting a heavy wood extreme foc tapered shaft smaller than the ferrule of a heavy single bevel broadhead.  Why not?  Why would I take him into the woods with anything less?

I myself have trouble shooting well with any bow much over 50# (ageing is a horrible thing for a bow hunter!    )  For a long time now I have shot 625 grain shafts with 190 heads from either a 47# or 50# bow.  This is a set-up that I know will give good penetration.  I'll be incorporating more of Ashby's findings into my arrows this year too.

I don't tout his findings as a religion or think his research defines the only ethical choice, but OTOH, I'm very concerned with what happens between myself and a deer or elk when it's just us in the woods.

[Missouri CK]

Interesting debate going on here.

I will add my two cents for what it is worth.  First of all some clarification about anecdotal
evidence... scientific studies are broken down into different classifications.  So it is correct to classify Ashby's work as anecdotal which isn't an insult at all.  Calling it a case study might be more appropriate but that is just semantics.

You can't line up zebra in a laboratory and run them in front of a mechanical shooting device that hits them identically every time in the shoulder blade to see what happens. So shooting an animal after it has already been killed is not a randomized control trial that can be compared directly to hunting.

I still feel like it gives us good information. At the least it’s the most organized set of evidence that we have at this point.  If other guys had kept organized statistics about their shots and depth of penetration then we would have more to compare to Dr. Ashby’s work.  I think we all do this in our head after a shot, but we don't write it down and make exact measurements.   It's a lot of work that I personally don't want to take the time to do so I am glad the good doctor took the time to do it himself.

The other point I want to make is that Dr. Ashby doesn't work for some broadhead manufacture. Heck he can't even find a broadhead that he likes out of the box.  That makes me feel like he is giving us a relatively unbiased viewpoint which is good. I don't shoot a grizzly because I can't get them sharp and don't want to take the time to modify them.  I shot a 160 grain STOS that fits Dr. Ashby's recommendation in some ways but don't meet the single bevel recommendation.  So I'm listening to his work but not worrying about following it to the very letter.

My last thought is the meat of this entire debate goes back to the idea of what is better for a bone hit (shoulder blade and spine) verses gut (non-lung) type hits.  Both are bad but both can be lethal.  Pick your poison. Single blade does better for bone,  mult-blade does better on muscle and gut.  Single blades may pass through more while multiblades may leave a better blood trail. What both parties should follow is Dr. Ashby's recommendation to shoot as heavy of an arrow as you can get "great" arrow flight.  

Like I said, just my two cents.

Chris

[monterey]

 If 3/1 heads of equal sharpness  actually prove superior that would be noteworthy.

You can test this yourself in the comfort of your own kitchen    

Take a sharp knife, a cutting board and a chunk of meat.  Makre three cuts on the meat with the first one being straight down on the meat and no forward or backward motion.  Next, use a similar downward force on the blade but slide the blade forward two inches.  Next do the same only slide the blade forward three inches.   Do all three with the same downward force and over the same period of time

When done you will have demonstrated to yourself that mechanical advantage is a big deal.

Just because so many broadheads have been made with less MA does not mean they are ideal or even good.

I think everyone ought to use what works best for them but, OTOH, the only way to figure out what works best is to keep an open mind to different ideas and try different things.

[TonyW]

THIS IS FROM THE ECLIPSE BROADHEAD STORE WEBSITE:
"Dr. Ed Ashby, author of Arrow Lethality Study endorses Eclipse
In an unsolicited and uncompensated statement, Dr. Ed Ashby, author of the original Arrow Lethality Study, is currently testing for an updated study writes, "In the initial stage of testing, the Eclipse is one of the heads I am very impressed with. You really have something with the Teflon™ coating! When tested in seven 1" thick layers of very fibrous fresh Asian Buffalo skin, it's penetration FAR exceeded any other tested broadhead of similar width and profile!"

Further testimony from Dr. Ashby:

Hello Blake,

I just now got back from the Northern Territory. Was doing some testing on Asian Buffalo.

You're right that the testing takes time! I expect it will be a decade before all the testing is completed. The Eclipse broadheads were among those that are still in the running for 'best quality' broadheads. None were damaged in the buffalo testing, and they performed very well. From this first round, the modified (narrowed) 190 grain Grizzly is still the penetration champion, but the Eclipse is one of the heads I was very impressed with. You really have something with the Teflon coating! The Asian Buffalo is the toughest animal, next to the pachyderms, to penetrate that I have encountered (including the Cape Buffalo). That has to do with some physical differences. The skin and mesenteric tissues are the most fibrous I've encountered on any animal so far, and the thickest skin is just back of the shoulder - right where one needs to be shooting.

I did some 'auxiliary' testing on fresh skin (7 thicknesses - so heavy I had to use the truck to hoist it up for a 'target'). It was interesting that the 145 gr. Eclipse was second only to the Mod, Grizzly in the buffalo shin penetration. It far exceeded any other broadhead of similar width and profile!

As soon as I get a break, I'll be writing some of the buffalo data up for publication, and I'll also be doing a post on the Trad Gang. Won't be going into much on the broadheads in that article, but do intend to mention a few broadheads that are performing exceedingly well so far in the test, including the Eclipse.

There's lots more information to be passed along, but time is always in short supply for me. Right now it's back to 'salving'. I'm trying to get a new batch of test arrows ready today for a short deer hunt trip, and some more testing. We're heading out tomorrow for that trip, so have lots to get done.

Keep an eye out for the Trad Gang post sometime after I get back from this trip. The article will be published first in Archery Action here (that's the Australian Bowhunting Association's magazine, and they are giving me great assistance, so get first publishing rights). Traditional Bowhunter has asked to be the first to get to republish, after first release here. There will be more details in the articles.

All the best,

Ed

----------

New "Titanium Teflon™" coating added to broadhead product line
This new coating features all of the great properties of their original Teflon™ coating: extreme heat and abrasion resistance, reduced friction, and increased penetration - but now in a more modern and appealing color.

In an unsolicited and uncompensated statement, Dr. Ed Ashby, author of the original Arrow Lethality Study, is currently testing for an updated study writes, "In the initial stage of testing, the Eclipse is one of the heads I am very impressed with. You really have something with the Teflon™ coating! When tested in seven 1" thick layers of very fibrous fresh Asian Buffalo skin, it's penetration FAR exceeded any other tested broadhead of similar width and profile!"

[Dave2old]

Responding to the opening post only ... yes, the "bottom line" quite often is folks determining to stick with what works for them. But two limitations here: What works for a perfect shot on a deer may not work for a perfect shot on an elk or moose, and in fact may not work for an imperfect shot on a deer (not to mention an imperfect shot on an elk or moose, etc.). And absolutely, "Dead is dead." But when the job is killing things -- whether at the slaughterhouse or in the field -- the strongest moral stance is "Dead is dead, but dead more faster is way more better!" I have come to a point toward the end of a long and active lifetime of bowhunting and killing, having done it way too many times less than best, that I can't keep doing it if I can't convince myself I'm doing it the best I possibly can. To each his own. "Perfection" is a slippery slope, often making Sisyphean fools of the best of us (those who care, try, and keep an open mind to new and better possibilities). Meanwhile, fools will be fools, and damn proud of it.

[leatherneck]

Why do so many people want to criticise others for the information they pass along. Is this nt what sites like these are for? If you don't agree with the Dr's facts, then don't degrade his findings. Just don't apply them! Don't be afraid of change people. Some of you have stated that the BH you have used for so long have worked and you don't see the need to inprove them. Well, how about the flint the indians used? Did we improve on them? Of course we did. Did the glass/sinew/carbon/foam/ bows of today improve mtrad archery? Sure they did. Unless you can tell me that you used a stone made hatchet, cut your bow out, installed a sinew made string that you made from a heat pit, and shot arrows made from the limbs you cut off the tree(I think you get the point) then you have accepted some sort of change in traditional archery.
The Dr. just added some change to trad archery. Take it or leave it, just don't degrade it. Give the respect you would want if it was you.
I for one have tried this since reading the findings. I'm shooting 300 grains up front and have not suffered any bad arrow flight. So I can't wait to try it on game to test the results. I'm not loosing anything.
Most broadheads have proven themselves over time to certain people. I'm a Snuffer diehard. But that doesn't mean I won't try something else. Later...Mike

[pdk25]

Too much time on your hands?  Go shoot.

[bm22]

why are so many heads that are 3 to 1 ? because until recently noone cared about high FOC, so most broadheads where in the 125- 150 grain range.  it is hard to make a 3 to 1 head that has a good blade thickness, durability and still keep the head under 200 grain. and if you start adding additional blades then it becomes all the more difficult to make a broadhead 3 to 1 and keep with thick and strong enough to be usable.

why not make a 6 to 1 because the tip would be so narrow it would be very prone to curling, also it would be extremely heavy.

3 to 1 seems to be the magic number.
the broadhead has two inclined planes the blad angle and the blade itself. a 1 in. wide broadhead still has to slice 1 in. wide, the slicing motion travels 3 inches for every 1 in. wide and so on and so forth.
you say there is if 3-1 is good why not make them 6-1 and a 2-1 is just as good as a 3-1.

why not make a 2 in. wide head that is 1 inch long will that penetrate as well as a  broadhad that has is 2 inches wide and 3 inches long, NO it wont, there i alot to be said for MA.

there is nothing special with a 3 to 1 head. that just seems to be the size that has a good balance between durability, MA and realistic size. it would be weird to have a 6 inch long broadhead sticking out the end of your bow.

i don't think i said anything about engineers.