Broadhead choice, dead is dead.

[Chad Lewis]

Ray,

But it still boils down to shot placement. Every animal I've lost was due to it, not what broadhead I was shooting.

Hitting elk, bear, deer and such in the shoulder, high, low, etc are just plain bad news. We do get lucky on some but not always.

Sharp solid broadheads are a given, it's up to us to put it in the correct spot. If not, the agony of archery will show it's ugly head.

[bm22]

i think you are correct chad, it does boild down to shot placement, and not just shot placement, we are dealing with live animals that move. i think the HIT is the most important thing !!!! i can make a perfect shot and have the animal move and make a horrible hit.  

there is nothing more someone can do that make a perfect shot, and sometimes you will still lose the animal.

but there is something we can do about the ones we lose because of penetration or poor broadheads. and that are the hits and losses i am trying to improve on.

granted on a perfect double lung hit any broadhead will do the job, even a fieldpoint will kill a deer, its the less than perfect hits and those are usually the biggest deer.

[leatherneck]

Can a moderator please pull this, this post is "Dead or Dead".How much longer are you going to let the good Dr's studies get bashed on here by individuals who are taking their knowledge out of a 3rd grade science book? Lets move on.

[bayoulongbowman]

shot placement is given for trad bowhunter!! this is so dumb...Id pull this!

[pdk25]

Yes, please pull this.  Both sides ridiculous.

[Ray Hammond]

PDK25,
I've tried to explain my reasoning with logic and facts and defend a friend who has devoted a great percentage of his personal wealth since the early 80's to pursue the truth...he's had his integrity maligned in this post.

I think Ed is in the bush, or he would have responded directly to these posts already.

So if that's ridiculous, well, I guess I'll just be ridiculous.

[fyrfyter43]

Originally posted by Chad Lewis:
But it still boils down to shot placement. Every animal I've lost was due to it, not what broadhead I was shooting.

What if you could have recovered just one of those animals had you been using a different BH? Let's say by breaking the scapula, rather than failing to penetrate more than an inch or so?

That's what I take away from Dr. Ashby's studies. His work helps us to make the best choices to up the odds on marginal or poor hits.

I've lost one deer due to a shoulder hit. Would I have recovered that deer if I was using a different head? I honestly can't say, but Dr. Ashby's work makes me think that BH choice may indeed have made a difference.

[Kingwouldbe]

OJ, Simpson was framed by the LAPD.

That's right! a mountain of evidence, DNA, Blood, witnesses etc....


Jesus said, the truth will set you free.....

But even after some have heard the truth they still believe the world is flat.

It's OK, Just here to help.

More DNA evidence for the jury.


13 yard shot on the ground, 55lb Habu, 550 grain small carbon arrow, Grizzly single bevel.

 

[Kingwouldbe]

Right through the armor.

 

[Kingwouldbe]

35 yards, same arrow & set up as above, you need a lot of penetration to get that far into the vitals.


 

[Kingwouldbe]

This was the second shot on this buck, the arrow cut the jugular and exited under the eye on the far side through the skull.

Some times shot placements not there, so your equipment needs to be the best and deliver the most penetration possible.


 

[James Wrenn]

Yeah I guess when you are not concerned with where you are hitting something that single edge is the way to go.At least it don't bounce off all those deer shoulders like some broadheads do.    You about need boots to read this thread.  

[Brian Krebs]

I don't know about anybody else; but I could use a steak  

[SteveB]

King - with all due respect, I've seen doz's of pic's posted with similar penetration with all type's of bh's.

Ray - I think it is possibly the claim (not necessarily from Ed) of great personnal sacrifice that some/many are bothered by. Ed appears to truly enjoy what he is doing and sees personal value to it - both worthy goals for anyone. And he is fortunate, thru hard work and dedication, to have found a way to pursue his lives love of hunting. Recording and sharing his results have provided him another angle to enjoy pursuit of his hobby.

For the most part, the discussions regarding everyones perception of the value of his reports to their own hunting are neither bashes or blanket attempts to push his recomendations as the only right choices.  But BOTH sides have those who take it to the extremes.

Point is his reports should neither be totally dismissed or considered gosphel. The discussions could then be much more civil and valuable to all.

Steve

[pdk25]

Amen to Steve

[monterey]

Originally posted by Tree man:
Monterey, I don't want to fight-I don't even want Dr. Ashby to be wrong. I do want everyone to THINK. Time at a cuttingboard can be enlightening but I wish to remind you that if time or distance are varied in the application of force then you are no longer comparing equal force.  


And all you STOS shooters -it IS a lovely head but do the math, it isn't 3/1. It isn't even close to 3/1.-It just seems "close" because it is a little more than 2/1.

Tree Man, Hey I hope you didn't think I was pickin a fight with you!  :eek:    My own skin is dang near as thick as those buffs ashby shoots and maybe I tend to think others are or should be the same.  If you took it as overly adversarial, I apologize.

I realize the cutting board experiment was not the best example but it's warmer in the kitchen that outside and a heck of a lot less windy!

The distance is dictated by the simulation of the length of the broadhead cutting edge, the time can only be guestimated and the force applied downward as you move forward needs to be guestimated too.  Like I said, not the best analogy but if done carefully, it does illustrate the virtues of high mechanical advantage.

I felt that Ashby presented the physics of KE, momentum, force and force over time very well.

Most trad hunters are aware of the failings of the mechanical broadheads and while the energy wasted in opening the blades is the most commonly identified issue, I think an even larger issue in their poor penetration is the angle of the blades once they do open.  Most seem to present a rather large angle with extremely low mechanical advantage.

The STOS is not the only vendor touting a 3/1 broadhead that isn't.  Several years ago I was scanning Kustom King and 3 Rivers catalogs and came across many broadheads touted as 3/1 with their actual measurements listed below them.  Not a single one was 3/1    

But, it shows the influence of Ashby's research that so many broadhead manufacturers would want to make the claim.  Too bad they don't want to expend some resources to actually produce a tough 3/1 broadhead  :(  

I've been shooting 190 ribteks for a while and they, like the grizz can be modified to suit.  I'll probably drop them though given the roughness of the ferrule which, according to Ashby, will inhibit penetration.  Makes sense to me.  I never hit an animal with a Ribtek so I can't comment on it from first hand experience.

I think it's significant that Ribtek is bringing out a 3/1 head with a nonvented ferrule that weighs in at 258 grains.

One of the most surprising findings to me was the relative toughness of wood shafts.  They apparently sustained far less damage than aluminum or carbon.  My local trad dealer tells me that four or five years ago he was making and selling 25 or 30 dozen wood arrows per month. Now it's down to only a few dozen.

Sorry for the rambling, but wanted to interject a few and various thoughts on this subject, all of which may not be closely related.  Just some observations, etc.

[jrchambers]

like any other gift his info will be acepted with grattude by some aswell as dismissed as a crique on personal preference by others.

[Jedimaster]

As the kids say OMG!  I got through page four, it seems as though it's an all out Ashby VS. Non-Ashby slug fest.  Same arguments... rinse, repeat.  

As if anyone could give a rat's fender here is my take:  My initial draw to "traditional" archery was the simplicity. I got everything tuned with some sharp two-blades (because they were the going rage then) and had a ball.  Recovery rates were better than my compound days and no fuss.  Years later three-blades came into vogue and I wondered if I was wrong with the two-blades.  Now it's single bevel.  All the "science" is not exact but it is pretty good.  I don't read a bunch of it because it makes some things complicated that just don't have to be.  With that said I like to hear your real world opinions... so thanks.  At some point I may change but when archery becomes another stresser for me it will lose it's allure.

[fyrfyter43]

Originally posted by James Wrenn:
Yeah I guess when you are not concerned with where you are hitting something that single edge is the way to go.

Apparently you're not shooting at the same kind of animals I am. Ya know, the kind that are able to move between the time I drop the string and the time the arrow hits its mark.

If I can find a way to increase my chances of recovering an animal despite a poor hit, whether because of the animal moving at the shot or because of my own error, I'm all for it.

[James Wrenn]

No of course sometimes things happen.Still it seems a bit silly to gear up for breaking bones and stuff when most of use juist shoot deer or hogs.It is like everyone is expecting to miss.There is not a single bone that you would break on a deer if you did not miss the whole kill area.If you hit a deer in the scapula as so many are concerned with you have missed the whole kill area on the deer.Instead of saying my broadhead did not work why not just say you missed because that is whay happened. :)Unless you are high up a tree with a deer real close you can not kill a deer if you hit the scapula.There is nothing vital there.You have shot high over the spine and too far forward.I personal don't care what any shoots or how they want to shoot it but it sure does make me wonder at times if some have ever skinned out a deer and looked at what is there.