Trad Gang

Topic Archives => Hunting => Topic started by: Charlie Lamb on March 18, 2003, 11:50:00 PM

Title: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Charlie Lamb on March 18, 2003, 11:50:00 PM
Was over on the Two blade vs. multiblade discussion and got to thinking.   :scared:   There are guys who get great blood trails with narrow 2 blades and guys who haven't gotten dink from a massive multiblade and every combination in between.

I got to wondering if there might be a major difference depending on whether the animals were shot from above or from groud level? Someone who typicically shoots his game from a tree stand might be used to perforating shots which leave a very low exit hole. I could see great bloodtrails from that situation regardless.
On the other hand, someone who typically hunts from the ground and makes mainly side to side shots might experience a different type of trail with the same head as the tree hunter.
I'd sure like to hear some thoughts.
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Dr. Ed Ashby on March 19, 2003, 01:52:00 AM
Hello Charlie,

This I want to know too!  'Degree of blood trail' will be closely looked at during the 'new' study.  :readit:  

Dawg is getting a chance to look over the "protocols" and will be able to fill you in on the detailed 'instructions' for the evaluation on the degree of blood trail exhibited from each 'real animal' shot for the data base.  :confused:  

Our original look at it, during 'Natal', didn't show ANY correlation to the number of blades or size of the head.  The only correlation seemed to be the shot placement, the presence or absence of an exit wound, and where the holes were located!    :p  

Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Charlie Lamb on March 19, 2003, 06:12:00 AM
Ed... I'll sure be interested to hear the results. I have a suspicion that the high entry, low exit scenario will be consitantly better. We'll just see won't we?
Hope all is well with you. Shooting much?
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Dan Worden on March 19, 2003, 07:08:00 AM
"Not that testing is wrong mind ya, but I just think we are rehashing stuff that already has been proven." Amen to that.

My experience w/ blood trails has been the hit is more infuential than the arrow tip. We also have a fairly common occurence of a wad of fat plugging the exit hole. Good, fat, southern MI farmland deer. BTW- primarily 10-18' treestand hits.
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Douglas DuRant on March 19, 2003, 07:13:00 AM
I posted on the 2 or 3 blade thread about this topic. I too think the shot placement makes the trail. My experience is slightly differnt than Bill's. I have, as a rule, a better blood trail from a stand than from the ground. I also seem to get a better blood trail with a 3 blade head than a 2 blade. Now none of this is a dramatic difference mind you. It is my own personal experience, and subjective take on that experience. This is mostly based on whitetail deer.

I can tell you I have better blood trails from blades than from bullets too. In fact I have kill many double lung deer with a gun from the ground that left no blood trail until you are close to were the deer fell.
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: wingnut on March 19, 2003, 07:38:00 AM
Ok, i'll give alittle experience from the selfbow corner, although bill builds selfbows it sounded like his experience shared was with curves.  Anyway, the placement of the exit wound or the existance of an exit wound has been the biggest contributors in my opinion for good blood trails.  Any shot that only penetrates one side is going to show less blood.  A high entry (tree stand) without an exit will show nearly no blood for quite a while.  And a high entry, no exit poor shot (liver) will drive ya crazy.

Had each happen and most were recovered, a couple were not.

Give me the double lung with exit goes down in sight blood trail anyday.

Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Charlie Lamb on March 19, 2003, 08:17:00 AM
Bill and Dan... I agree whole heartedly. This has been rehashed and I can almost picture a couple of cave men wrestling on the floor of their cave over who's arrow point design was most lethal.  :knothead:  
I just think that guys who've been around for a while take some stuff for granted, but their are always new guys around (more and more as this site grows I'd say) who need to know the thoughts on differnent issues. A form of mentoring, at least in this venue.
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Terry Green on March 19, 2003, 02:26:00 PM
Interesting Bill.  I can't add much for ground shots, cause I have only shot one from the ground, and it ran the fartherest.  That was due to the deer wheeling, and the worst shot placement of my 20 year era.  I credit the Snuffer, and its sharpness to the recovery.

I do have a less than 40 yard recovery rate from Zwickey Delta 4 blades from the trees.  Shot placement is the key I truely believe, whether from the ground, or a tree.  And back to sharpness.  I also believe that a VERY sharp head, either honed, or filed, plays a major roll.
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Buckeye on March 19, 2003, 02:31:00 PM
This lends itself a bit to a discussion Bill "Walkingstick" Mac-Cauley and I had around a fire last year. It seems that over in his neck of the woods in PA that the presence of fat is not the norm. Matter of fact he was knocked over by how much was on the deer we were taking in Ohio. When we caped a few out that weekend it was the one dramatic difference he kept coming back to. I wonder if this does not come into play more than we discuss? Seems to be an important fact while shooting pigs.

Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: joel smith on March 19, 2003, 04:50:00 PM
definitely relates to how many holes and where they're situated. I used to tell my elk hunters to get a second arrow on the bow as quickly as possible and i would try to stop or slow the bull's exit with a cow call. I wanted as many holes (and especially exit holes) as I could get for blood trailing purposes. Sometimes i was really glad for that second shot (especially if the first was poorly placed).

Having said that, I'm definitely in the "hole instead of a slit" camp. Used Zwickeys, Interceptors, Landsharks, Patriots (short trial),Thunderheads, Muzzys,Razorheads,Grizzlies, Satellites, Savoras and Woodsmans---best blood trails have come with 3 blades and the two Simmons heads with the concave edges (and serious width).
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: joel smith on March 19, 2003, 04:51:00 PM
oops, should have said 3 and 4 blades
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: OHIOHUNTER on March 19, 2003, 05:08:00 PM
Sounds like you've got pretty good experience with elk.  Question:  Until the past year or so I hunted elk with a 60-65 bow and used a snuffer successfully for elk but, due to a bad shoulder  :eek:  , I've had to change to a 55# bow plus I have a short 25-26 inch draw.  I've been shooting carbons with 190 grain Interceptors and 125 grain WW with steel inserts (total of 225 grains). Both fly great further than I can accurately shoot.  I've also been thinking of trying a weighted 135 grain Tiger Shark.  Have you had much experience on elk with the Interceptor and WW on elk and what has your experience been for penetration and bloodtrail?  My tests on foam and plywood have shown the WW to get better penetration but was wondering if you've had any real-world elk experience with these heads.

Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: joel smith on March 19, 2003, 05:20:00 PM
hey Joe, haven't gotten to try the WW on elk but i'm itchin' to. Did use Interceptors and a 150 grain version called the Landshark on 'em--they did very well penetration-wise and blood trail-wise. I used a 66# recurve for most of them and no doubt short-drew it some of the time. Judging from the results I got, I believe that a dead-broadside or very slightly quartering shot would do the job with the tackle you described (this assumes good placement). I'm not a big fan of longer quarters because I like to have an exit and that seldom happens with elk at angles regardless of bow weight. Although I haven't shot near as many elk as some of the guys here, guiding other hunters and a naturally inquisitive nature about BH's and wound channels have led me to some strong opinions
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: paradocs on March 19, 2003, 09:31:00 PM
I don't want to say that blood trails are over-rated  :eek:  , 'cause I think the region you're hunting dictates their importance.  Real heavy cover and swampy conditions might call for heavier blood trails to aid in recovery.  That being said, I've always felt that blood trails, and hemorrhage for that matter, is secondary in importance to creating a bilateral pneumothorax, or collapsing both lungs.  Since the most reliable way to achieve this is a complete broadside(or nearly so)passthrough, I try to setup for that very shot, and use equipment that will accomplish it if I do my part.  I'm willing to bet that the treestand shot that creates an exit wound would put more blood on the ground most of the time, but I'm willing to sacrifice that benefit for a greater margin for error with the level broadside shot.  That may not say much about my shooting ability, but it's working so far  ;)  .
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Dr. Ed Ashby on March 19, 2003, 11:20:00 PM
Hello Charlie,

Yep, shooting some.  I already have five records ready to enter, as soon as all the 'formalities' of protocol review are finished, and as soon as I can get my chronograph down here to get the velocity reaings.  Hope to het away next week for another short hunt too.

'Oficial' kick off of the study will be in September, when I'll head 'bush' for three months of continuous hunting.

Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Dr. Ed Ashby on March 19, 2003, 11:27:00 PM
Bill ... interesting post.  The strongest protest I've had (through the years) about the Natal Study was that many of the animals were 'too big to be applicable to North American hunting'!!!

That never made much sense to me.  It's like saying that a rifle/cartridge/bullet combination that proved adequate to stop a charging cape buffalo in its tracks wouldn't also be 'adequate' to use on a deer ... because the animal it DID work on was 'too big'!!!  Maybe it would be 'overkill', but 'not adequate'????????

Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Charlie Lamb on March 20, 2003, 08:25:00 AM
Ed... Sounds like you are really busy. I can't imagine the logistic problems of moving to a knew country and setting up a program like you are.
Guess I could if I had too.

What weight bow you using these days. I take it you aren't a spring chicken and I know you've had a preference for heavier than normal bows.   :D
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Cueball on March 20, 2003, 09:03:00 AM
Nice post love to hear the views of more experienced hunters than myself.

Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Dr. Ed Ashby on March 20, 2003, 08:09:00 PM

Just had to retire 'Lady', my 94#.  She got a split limb tip being smugled out of Zimbabwe!  Thought of doing some tip overlays, but decided she was a tiny bit of bowhunting history, and it just wouldn't be right to change her.  Has a lot of big animals to her credit - of a lot of different species.

Mostly using some of my other bows now.  They are 86#, 82#, 82# (again) and 79# (at my draw).  Have several others, lighter, but they are used mostly in 'testing'.  Lightest is 65#.

Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Alan Payne on March 20, 2003, 08:23:00 PM
Interesting thread. I shot an elk broadside with a ww and didn't get much blood. Got both lungs and the arrow landed 10 yds on the other side. Elk didn't live long but took off like a scalded cat.I think that two blade heads don't disturb an animal like three blades. A snuffer says hello in a big way and this is also a factor.Adreniline
plays a big part in recovery and blood trails.
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Gonzo on March 20, 2003, 08:29:00 PM
My Heavy Bow is Just 65# and it is a Selfbow  ;)  

I do have a 61# BW Recurve that has only failed complete Passthroughs on 3 occasions (All on Hogs) but it has always been sticking out the other side  ;)
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: on March 20, 2003, 10:04:00 PM

I have taken elk with both WW & Snuffers.  I think you will be just fine with WW.   Suggest you shorten up the tip.

I do agree with everyone who says both WW & Snufs do a wake up call on the animals.  I have not seen any hesitation on elk moving right out after impact.  That said, I have often been able to stop them, or at least slow them down with a bugle ater the shot.

It has been my experience that I don't generally find much of a blood until about 40 yards down the trail.  Seems to take that long before it hits the ground.  But there are exceptions!

Can't comment about any difference from a treestand or on the ground; never shot from a tree.

But I will tell you that you guys that shoot a bunch of animals in a year know a lot more about trailing than most of us out in the West.
Title: Re: Difference in Bloodtrails
Post by: Java Man on March 21, 2003, 12:59:00 PM
I shot a small 1 1/2yr Mi whitetail buck last year with a 145 Snuffer, from 16ft up, and 14 yds out.  Went in right behind the shoulder, and only an entrance wound.  The purplheart shaft stayed in the deer.

It was a high hit, but there was blood from about the third leap that I could follow as a casual walk.  150 yd recovery (scalded cat type   :scared:  .  Huge hole.