Trad Gang

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.

IMHO the best head is the Zwickey two blade.  Easy to sharpen and they will do the job.  Been using it for many years.

OK

Broadheads are like girlfriends. You might like the one you have but it doesn't hurt to try a new one once in awhile. You just might end up liking your new choice better! Still, dead is dead.

Your right that there are a bunch of good broadheads out there.  It's also good to check that the one your using is at least in the good category.  There are a bunch of BH designed for wheel bows that really suck with trad equipment.

Mike

I agree, and will stick with my Zwickey deltas but, the work Ashby has done is good work, and reinforces what most of us here already know. And for some one huntin thick skinned heavy boned animals his stuff should be really looked at and taken to heart. For us guys huntin deer and maybe a bear now and then, it is more of a guide, ie: I shoot a 60lb bow 600 gr arrows and cut on contact 2 blade. and have never had a arrow or head fail, and get pass throughs 90% of the time unless a offside shoulder is hit. But I KNOW my set up is not anywhere near what one would need on african big game.

I personally shoot Grizzly 190's or trade points, but I think far less has been proven to be effective.  I definately agree, dead is dead.

-Brett

keep em sharp, shoot straight the deer will be dead, zwickeys do it for me and I am not going to switch because someone told me to.

I agree and think David has said it best for me. I'll shoot what is a good bh because I hunt mostly deer and hope to do bear or elk someday. If I was going to Africa for big game I would really try to use more of the imformation Dr. Ashby has provided. It is great reading and great work and I think he has done a wonderfull job. Agree also with chickenman, keep em sharp and shoot straight, dead is dead.

When I started hunting in the early 70's, an old timer that had been bow hunting since the 40's showed me a simple method of sharpening  2 blade heads with a file that, for a right handed person and after several sharpenings,esentially produced a left bevel broadhead that was very sharp. He insisted that I use left wing feathers with this method.  If you were left handed results would be just the oppisite and produce a right bevel and need for right wing fletch.

We used this method on heads with bleeders also. He used the old style Bear heads exclusively.  I have used Bear heads and then switched to zwickeys after Bear changed to the aluminum feral.  I think next time I need new heads I will buy the Zwicky's with the left bevel just to save some work on the first sharpening.  I have also used grizzleys with right wing feathers and found them to be excellent heads.

Maybe single bevel head producing better penetration is not as new of an idea as we think.  People throughout history have figured out intuitively some pretty amazing things. Now we have research to back it up.

Actually, nothing about Ashby's conclusions are scientific since the  events cannot be duplicated in a controlled setting.  All his conclusions are based on his observations and personal experience and are, therefore, anecdotal.  He is really no different than most of us except that he hunts a lot more, it seems. There are really only two things that seem to be important in bowhunting most of North American big game, straight shooting arrows with sharp bhs. There have been way more big animals taken over the years with "regular" bows and "regular" arrows than Ashby has taken with all of his equipment. I am not saying his conclusions are of no value or of little validity and they are certainly worth discussing. They are not, however, scientific and the application of his conclusions are probably of little consequence for most of us that can get our arrows to shoot/tune perfectly and are able to get our bhs really sharp.

Folks sure do get their noses out of joint when someone puts some information out that might challenge their beliefs.  No one ever said that double bevels didn't work, and no one ever said you "have to use" single bevels.  Time to quit beating the dead horse.

Personally, I like two edge heads, especially a big Zwickey, because of how easy they are to sharpen. I could probably sharpen them on a flat rock.

I have a ten yr old who will be bow hunting for the first time this year. I must say, that with all the hubbub about single bevel aiding penetration, I`m sure the new single bevel "No Mercy" will be on the end of his arrows. They certainly can`t hurt.

I agree with the "dead horse" thing, but I can`t help it. Talk of broadheads will always get me to flush.

I shoot 46# bows and use 125 grain Snuffer heads. until a dead deer tells me they'd rather have been shot with something else I'll keep on useing that set-up.

as far as all these 'scientific reports' are concerned "just because something is written down somewhere don't mean it's always true".

shoot what you're confident with and SHOOT IT WELL.   :thumbsup:

I don't understand why one would not want to use a lager 3 or 4 blade head on light game like deer. I get pass throughs using sharp 3 blades and a 550gr. arrow. i'm considering going in the oppisite direction. A larger head like the muzzy phantom and maybe a slightly lighter arrow.

I have not yet been convinced to change from my old, reliable double-bevel Zwickeys.  They have been very effective (even on large game) for decades.  

With a normal 6 pack of Eskimos running about 20 bucks, that is a steal in my book.  If taken care of, those 6 Eskimos could kill tons of critters.

Brett

Broadhead choice. We know that big sharp multiblade broadheads kill deer. No question there. It doesn't work for everyone and their own set-up however. So what are some options if you want to increase your efficiency/success rate? Ashby has reported some things that he has tested and reported that you may consider. Some argue it is not scientific. I say it's not perfect science but it is science. He has made observations on arrow lethality, asked questions, tested those questions and reported his results. He has even attempted to test each variable that he has encountered and tested those specific variables. Is his methods and mediums perfect? No, but his published results are much more than anecdotal. Each person then has to decide if that information may be helpful to them. As far as new broadheads and prices, looks to me like a lot of us have more than one economical traditional bow. Cheap bows kill deer as well as expensive ones. And still dead is dead.

Just so there is no misunderstanding. Ashby's observations and recommendations seem to me to have more validity and I would certainly follow his advise if I were going to be hunting dangerous big game like buffs in Oz or Africa. However, a lot, actually, most of what he says, while making perfect sense is "overkill" (pun intended) for the majority of us who are hunting medium to small size big game like deer and bear. I think there is a point of diminishing returns on arrow weight and high FOC. I have found that a high FOC seems to have afforded me better penetration but to go beyond the 200-225 grains I use up front right now causes me tuning problems that I am not willing to invest money in (meaning I would have to buy new shafts and they ain't cheap) in order to make gains that I  am not convinced are necessary. As for the single bevel bh.....I believe it is a niche market and I find them extremely hard to get shaving sharp. Putting a 600# moose down in 20 yards with a scary sharp Razorcap told me all I need to know about what an adequate set up for me is.

Striving to make our chosen equipment (in our case, it happens to be traditional archery gear) as deadly and efficient as possible is our responsibility.  

I haven't used Dr. Ashby's techniques but plan to give them a try.  I like his idea that his techniques really shine on the marginal hits, especially where bone is encountered.  And I know that not one person on this website can claim to have always made perfect hits on game.

I look at his work like this:  automobile manufacturers have a research and development department that strives to make trucks better.  But at the end of the day a truck still has four wheels, a bed, a cab, an engine, etc.  I consider Dr. Ashby the research and development department for trad archery.  Do his findings mean that the way we have always done it don't work or are somehow lesser?  Not a bit.  He is just sharing his findings and showing us ANOTHER WAY to do things.  Take them or leave them.  It's your choice.  But they still involve a trad bow, arrow and broadhead.  I just don't understand why some people get all worked up about his proposals, as if they are an affront to the traditional ways we are used to.

One more thing...how did the single bevel broadhead get a reputation as hard to sharpen?  I have a number of knives with a single bevel edge (Emerson, CRKT, etc. with a tanto style blade) and they are the absolute easiest knives I own to sharpen to a scary edge.  Simply work them on a file or stone at the right angle, then flip them over and knock off the wire edge on a strop.  Done.  No counting strokes per side, no switching from side to side and having to reset the angle.  I did the same to a Zwickey I had lying around and found it a piece of cake to turn into a single bevel that is razor sharp.  Just my two cents on all this.

Dale, It's not the single bevel on the broadhead that's hard to sharpen, it's specifically the Grizzly brand single bevel broadhead.  They are very hard steel.

-Brett

Single edge broadheads is nothing new. Some stone heads were made with only single bevel on each edge look just like a grizzly only alot older. Sometimes I think we just keep reinventing the wheel,over an over. Bob

Although we would like to think so, a deer just inst a big game animal. Elk are just big deer and a moose is just a bigger deer. My point is that while I like Ashby's studies for the time and effort put into them, he is talking about shooting huge boned buffalo with hides an inch thick or more. He is looking at the most extreme performance you would ever need from a hand drawn bow and arrow. While his
basic information is valuable to know, it doesn't reflect what 90 percent of bow hunters need to know. The results of various shots on deer type animals with deer hunting equipment. I would rather read a pole on 1000 bow hunters about their shots on game. Then we could form some real opinions.

just my two cents

I thought Dr. Ashby's report was awesome and appreciate the posting of it. I don't see ANYTHING AT ALL in it that should ruffle the feathers of anybody. I myself have been doing research on the topic of light vs. heavy arrows. I couldn't have been happier to find this report. My studies have found that Kinetic Energy has little to do with penetration. If it was KE a super light super fast arrow would out penetrate heavier arrows.

This is the way I see it. It's only my opinion which is really not much at all. I don't plan on shooting at game over 25 yards max. I believe with enough practice I could learn the arc of any arrow   at that distance. Giving that said WHY wouldn't I want to get the VERY highest TPI out of the set up? Say I place a not so perfect placed shot on a hog or deer and hit bone? Wouldn't I want it to go on through the bone, and through organs and through the other side? Seems to me it's a YES on all the above. As stated earlier in this blog NOBODY ALWAYS puts a PERFECT shot on their game.

Two quotes I've heard recently that rang true:

"A problem I've seen through the years that alot of bowhunters get themselves into is worrying about speed. Archery has never been about speed."

"through practice you can master the arc of any arrow, no matter how heavy or light and be accurate"

Sorry it got alittle lengthy guys, have a good day. HH

I for one found Dr. Ashbys work to be very helpful desite the fact that I only hunt hogs and maybe deer. Will I implement all of what he recommends? No, but the parts that I think are relevant for me will get special attention.

QuoteSay I place a not so perfect placed shot on a hog or deer and hit bone? Wouldn't I want it to go on through the bone,  

What bone might you be talking about?

Steve

this thread starts off confusing to me, dead is dead....yeah and then there is recovery , pentration, etc.....the debate goes on and on!!!all BH's arent equal>>>--->> marco I agree with hunble hunter!!!

i like what Ashby says, I found a four blade herters out in the woods.  Scraped my sharpener over it a few times, it had never been sharpened.  A day or so later I shot it through a deer, 75 yards to the deer after the hit.  If I had more I would use them.  alot of things work, if you got the power to get the job done.  I my case it was a 64 lb. longbow.

Brett:  Aha!  Thanks for clearing that up.  I haven't tried the Grizzly yet.  It's on my "To-Buy" list, though...just to experiment with

:saywhat:

Howdy Steve,
Thanks for posting. In my statement I was referring to a story I heard from a guy who shot a MONSTER buck from a tree stand. He hit the spine, the BH curled, and had almost ZERO penetration. Didn't really even hurt the buck. (a guy had video of this deer for several years in a row after that).

With alittle imagination I can see hitting shoulders, spines and ribs. If a deer "ducks" a shot or "Spins" on a shot or does both, there's no telling what might actually happen for sure. Or, if I shoot a game and failed to see a tiny little twig, WhamO!

Example:
When I was shooting a..........(looks both ways).......compound a few years ago I had this happen. The bow had severe torque if you held the bow "properly" you know completely open fingers. Well during practice with that bow I always slightly gripped the bow and it actually made it a fairly straight shooter. (I discovered all this afterward this deer) When I shot this doe at less then 25 yards, perfect broadside, when I released it the arrow went left into the side of a tree, bounced off that into a pile of briers, came out of there and went right into the deers guts at an extreme angle. Almost a straight away angle. All that happened at less then 25 yards and the actual zig-zag was in less then a 5 yard space. I never recovered that doe. The whole deal upset me terribly. As a matter of fact that was the straw that broke the camels back and I went to Trad stuff since then and I've never looked back.

Point is, nobody is always EXACTLY sure whats going to happen Every time.

Again, This is just my worthless opinion and it is totally worthy of file 13 with no problems.

Hope I cleared my statement up alittle bit and have a great night all, HH

I take it for fact that the single bevel with the correct fletch will out penetrate  and leave a larger hole than the double. What you want to do with that data is your business but I don't think you can change the results any.

Good call Orion.  This isn't even religion or politics!  SOME people really get upset when just what they think they know about simple things get turned upside down.
  Multiblade heads showed their poor performance early in Ashby's studies.  Even some 2 blade designs because of lack of durability.  

 But because of Ashby's work, whether due to age, sex or injury, a person can draw back on a mature elk here in the states with say a 43# bow and the right arrow and broadhead combination have the CONFIDENCE to know it can get the job done.  
 In ours and many quality departments there is a sign, "In God we trust, all others bring data."
 Dr Ashby at his own cost and at no profit for himself has brought the data, and our sport is the better for it.  We need more like him.

Reading through this thread, I'm reminded of reading a copy of How to Win Friends and Influence people years ago. I still remember Carnegie writing that no one, "NO ONE", ever willingly changes their opinions on anything! Especially if it's someone else's idea.

I like what Ashby had to say; and loved that here was a guy that went and did all this on his own, with his own cash at a sacrifice of many other things.

Dead is Dead!  :thumbsup:  Sharp and hit where you look!  As long as your looking in the right spot!  lol  :banghead:

LOL nice head-banging ahahahaahahah

Amen, Mr. Chuck, and the right spot is not between the antlers!

Maybe I shoot at more deer than most, and I get to see a few elk get shot as well.   But I'm here to tell you, that dead might be dead, but finding them after they are sure can be easy or it can  be  hard.   Wounded, sometimes should be dead, but ain't....and I'll fess up to a few of these, unlike some on here.   I shoot heavy bows...well, heavier than most, and many of my shots, with razor sharp heads, don't go all the  way  through...heck they rarely blow through and stick in the ground!   I like to shoot primitive equipment mostly,  except I've been very  disappointed with stone so far....so I like to have the  best broadheads on my bow to  maximize penetration.   Two holes is always better than one, I find in my bloodtrailing.   Dr. Ashby's reports have really educated me since the very first one came out, and most of you did'nt even know who he was.   It may not  be  "science" to some of you...but it is hands down the BEST  reporting and analyzing done on the subject.  To ignore his findings is plain stupid, especially you light bow guys...IMO.   So read it,  learn something, and make you decisions based on what you have experienced yourselves...but if you ever  find that "should be dead but is wounded" or "should be dead quicker" happens to you, then you will have an idea of where you might have gone wrong.  

It is just plain dumb to "pooh-pooh" good experience.   Stupid is as Stupid does,  Mama always said.....-Forest Gump

I'll take all the help I can get and the Doc has done a lot of helping. The challenge I guess is to compare your recovery rates to his, the man hasn't lost but a handful of animals over a lot of decades(not saying you're old Doc, just have a lot more experience than most).

I have killed a lot of animals with my bows; and there is no doubt that dead is dead; and as Mr Chuck says you should hit what your looking at; and keep the broadheads sharp.

I do not doubt that dead is dead. Thing is when you hit an animal and lose it. Then your brain is full of 'what ifs' and- if we can lower both the hit and lost rate; and increase the recovery rate- well I will give it a try.

I agree that Ashbys studies are not exact science. I would want not only the exact same bow weight; and level of perfection of release- in order to [ahem] draw any scientific conclusions; and this would mean the use of a bow machine to do the shooting.

Then too the use of consistant targets are essential. When you shoot an animal in one spot; a tiny bit to the left right; up or down can produce a different result.
So; perhaps skin glued onto gelatin would be far more scientific than methods we judge broadheads upon now.

Ashbys studies are more than just broadhead types; it notes that an arrow shaft that is bigger than the broadhead ferrule can effect penetration due to drag.

Even the slickness of the broadhead and shaft are important to penetration.

There is a lot more to Ashbys studies than the notations about broadheads; and it is logical stuff he is putting forth.

Yep its the off season again........  :rolleyes:

QuoteTo ignore his findings is plain stupid, especially you light bow guys...IMO.  

To take totally anecdotal evidence based on shooting large, tough African animals with forward kill zones and insist that those not using it on all NA big game are stupid is stupid and insulting as well. And that is exactly what many are doing.

While I sincerely appreciate the results from anyone's real world field experiance, the increasing tendency by some to nearly declare Ashby's reports a religion to be followed and accepted by all who should disregard their own experiences is going way over the top. Not all are doing this, but enough are that its hard to ignore.

Steve

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.

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

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

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.

QuoteOriginally 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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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

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.  ;)  .

QuoteOriginally 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.

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!  :o  )  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.

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

QuoteIf 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.

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!"

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.

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

Too much time on your hands?  Go shoot.

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.

i want someone to make a broadhead that is a single bevel gizz when i hit bone but will change in mid air to a large 4 blade when i hit something in the guts.

that is something i would buy, till then i will keep trying new stuff.

Dave2old,
Can you explain to me more better and more faster?  :)  
I agree that dead is dead but on marginal hits dead isn't always dead (Remember the compound rage with overdraws in the late 80's? Seems that speed wasn't everything it was cracked up to be when a light arrow wouldn't penetrate jack.) I think this is what the Doc is pushing a better chance of killing vs. wounding on marginal hits. If nothing else you should at least be able to take away one thing from the article that improves your ability to make a poor shot work to your advantage and a quicker death for prey.

"This is the official site of Grizzly & Wolverine Broadheads. The Grizzly Broadhead has enjoyed an excellent reputation among bowhunters who place a premium on strength, maximum penetration and absolute perfect flight characteristics.

The Grizzly's two bladed design and its unique single-bevelled edges provide extreme ease of sharpening. In addition, the single-bevelled edges cause the arrow to rotate on impact imparting less shaft drag, deeper penetration and additional cutting action. The Grizzly has been tested by an independent researcher against 32 different broadheads including other fixed-blade and new replaceable blade types. It was found to be the most durable and lethal broadhead for big game made today."

I hope Dr. Ed gets something for his endorsements. Eclipse and Grizzly sales owe him some compensation. It would be nice to have a few other experts to compete with Dr. Ed, though.
How soon before we see the "Ed Ashby signature broadhead" from one of these manufacturers?

For light weight outfits and short draws I have found the Hills and Grizzlies superior to anything else.  I was using the wide 160 Magnus for a few years until i blew  a chance on a large buck and blew was the right word.  I was shooting almost down wind with strong gusts.  My arrow took an unexpected side step that caused it to deflect off the deer's shoulder and stick in the ground in front of the deer.  I tried an other after the deer bolted that one did the same.  i had one Hill with me, that arrow flew perfect with the quartering tail wind,  I went back to Hills.

Bill,

You can't have it both ways. Your first post says his conclusions are based on anecdotal evidence and therefore are no better than any of our conclusions because they aren't scientific, then you say they are useful if you are going after bigger game in Africa.your two posts seem at conflict, to me, and do not make very much sense in either case.

If "dead is dead" then a dead deer is just a smaller dead kudu or eland....but those of you that think North American game isnt tough have not hunted big hogs. The shield on a 200 lb boar can be between an inch and two inches thick..think of those big truck retread pieces you see lying on the side of the interstate, strapped onto the side of a pig...thats what you have to go through, before you get to bone.

I think many of you mistakenly believe that Ed Ashby's work has no bearing on what we do because he tests on the biggest game. That's wrong..he tests on the biggest game because its easier to see results at the uppermost limits of what's available to shoot at, but bone contact is bone contact- how many of you have killed deer with broadheads embedded in the spine, shoulder knuckle, etc?

What if those guys had been shooting grizzlies instead? Would they be eating venison instead of having bad dreams about the one that got away?

QuoteI hope Dr. Ed gets something for his endorsements. Eclipse and Grizzly sales owe him some compensation. It would be nice to have a few other experts to compete with Dr. Ed, though.
How soon before we see the "Ed Ashby signature broadhead" from one of these manufacturers?/QUOTE]

I'd consider that to be bad faith speculation.  It's been over 25 years now and it hasn't happened yet.  According to Ashby it never will.

Good studies with quite conclusive evidence shouldn't be overlooked too casually. It sounds crazy, but ones' own experience is not a study becuase typically there are very low study "populations" or experiences, non-reproduceable situations, etc. So, when it comes to penetration, Dr Ed's evidence is the best going at this time. If you are looking at blood trails or other "endpoints", his information is not helpful. People run into trouble when they begin to "trust" their own experiences vs evidence from large, well designed trials, and then usually something makes them realize why unexpected events happen when going against something proven.

I don't know alot. But after considerable thought I can honestly say Dr Ashby is smarter than me...  :goldtooth:

Quotethe strongest moral stance is "Dead is dead, but dead more faster is way more better!"  

If true, should we even be using bows at all.
Would not the largest rifle one could shoot accurately be the strongest moral method?

You might not agree that  Asbys data is needed for your  situation  but what scientific studies  are you using to dispute his findings? Were can I find such readings?

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. Plus, however similarly you might try to apply force at a cutting board with a knife, cutting behaviors may (DO) change due to velocity.(An arrow doesn't encounter the target in the same way as you do slowly cutting with your knife.)
Howard Hill and Dr. Ed Ashby both tout the superiority of 3/1 broadheads. Long skinny heads DO seem to fly very well and kill game if they hold up (don't bend or break) but neither HH or EA have PROVEN that they are better. A number of people who have spent time testing differing designs have rejected 3/1 ratio broadheads as showing no advantage and in most designs(-NOT the Grizzly) they suffer fragility issues. I myself have shot both high  and standard ratio designs on game and found no discernible difference in penetration.
I am going to try single bevels biased to coincide with fletching. I hope I love it.  I read Dr. Ashby's work. I appreciate it. He just fell on his face when he tried to introduce a bunch of physics into the discussion without applying it correctly (his mechanical advantage argument regarding broadhead design). I don't argue this out of disrespect fro Dr. Ashby- but out of a search for truth. I would happily shake Dr. ed's hand and sit down and discuss where hecame up short face to face. Maybe we could devise some test parameters that would reveal the truth about broadhead length/width ratios. 3/1 might even win-but until we eliminate the other variables and are testing only length to width ratios  I am not accepting something as true simply because some archers think it is true.

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 is right.

Start by reviewing your physics:

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/BBoard.html

I am skeptical that Dr. Ashby is unpaid and unbiased since he is used in advertisements from companies that want to divert money from competitors. Rico is also right. We only have Dr. Ashby's data. A scientific study needs UNBIASED data from researchers to back up or dispute the good doctor. Surely Dr. Ed would agree with this. Saying that no study exists that disputes the data also points out that no study CONFIRMS the data.


(PS If I want to know the best way to drill through a water buffalo hip bone, I would ask the vet at the National Zoo.)

I think if more people put the arrow in the vitals more often, what broadhead to use would be of little discussion. More animals are lost due to poor shots than anything.

Very few animals lost can be blamed on the BH but people being people need an outlet for failure, and the first to come up is the BH.

Great point Chad.

Here is a thought that goes along with it. It is also quite possible far more animals are lost due to poor shot placement then are lost to poor penetration. I bet a high number of bad hits ot "shots that go wrong" still would be lost animals even with better penetration.

Not a lot of quick kill vitals behind the areas not being penetrated well on poor shots.

If you shoot carbon or aluminum arrows and need a screw-in head, I haven't found anything that works better than Muzzy Phantoms.  I have used them the past two years and had nothing but success.  Also, Fred Eichler has killed every species of big game in North America w/ them, so if that doesn't show you that they work, then nothing will.

(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p105/carparcher/IMG_1639.jpg)

Because you are skeptical makes it so, Tony? I know Ed personally. He isn't getting paid to write his studies. I have not seen any ads using his information, but if someone quotes his studies...does that mean he is compensated?

I know for a fact that his studies were turned down by some pretty influential magazines due to worries about advertisers. Ed only buys the heads he uses...he does not take FREE heads from manufacturers.

People cite all kinds of sources of information to market products, government agencies, magazine articles, experts in their field, heck, they even cite their competitors on occasion. I'm not certain that is proof they are compensating the source. All they have to do is identify the source, not pay them.

Chad, you have a 50/50 chance when you make a bad shot- you are either going to make a bad soft tissue hit, or a bone hit. If your broadhead is sharp, its going to cut what it cuts. If your broadhead doesn't do well against bone, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO KILL THE ANIMAL.

I cannot count all the times I've heard people talk about hitting a game animal, like the "easy to kill" whitetail in the shoulder and the arrow 'bounced off' the deer.

Science is great...but when you are dealing with straight science its difficult to impossible to replicate shooting a broadhead arrow through a body- with fluids, soft, hard, and inbetween tissues, hair, skin, and bone EXCEPT by doing just that. I think that is what Ed has done. I don't think he is searching for anything but the truth in his endeavors....

I'm Ray Hammond, and I have not been compensated for this post.

ATABOY...ray!!!!!!!!

i honestly cant beleive that someone started this post and some of the responses,  Dr Ed has spent countless hours and probably three times that in money just so he can help all the poor shmucks that are not maximizing their weapons lethality.
   I dont recall ever reading in his work where he told me i have to use what he said to.
   if he is getting compensated for his work, i bet it is by the best broadhead out there.  can anyone argue that a tanto tip is the toughest,  it was origonaly designed for armor piercing blades.  what about 3 to 1. any idiot knows that the less the angle the less the resistance but he has found the optimal medium as far as weight and toughness.
   Use whatever equipment you want but dont all defensive because he didnt say your setup was best, probably because it is far from it.  
   Personaly i will be using his advice when it comes to large animals.  and i am confident if i do it right shoulder punching a large bull moose will be no problem.
  YOU ALL SHOULD BE THANKING HIM.  after all you didnt have to pay a cent to read his stuff. kinda makes me sick

LOL I agree dead is dead and my hats off to anybody thats willing to do the research that Ashby has done for free.

I'll make anybody any kind of BH they want providing they pay enuff LOL I was thinkin a solid steel 2 blade 1" wide 3" lng 300 grainer with a single bevel from high carbon tool steel for carbon arrows if folks wanna pay top dollar why not let them....I persoanlly won't spend what it would take but hey I'm cheap LOL and there are plenty of good heads and I didn't pay myself for the ones I've already made

LOL ...swampbuck ditto ROTF... :)

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes, please pull this.  Both sides ridiculous.

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.

QuoteOriginally 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.

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.

 (http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w27/kingwouldbe/hunting9-22-0510-16-05063.jpg)

Right through the armor.

(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w27/kingwouldbe/DSCN2414-1-2.jpg)

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


(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w27/kingwouldbe/DSCN0346-3.jpg)

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.


(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w27/kingwouldbe/BMBTarrow-1.jpg)

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.  :bigsmyl:  You about need boots to read this thread.  :clapper:

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

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

Amen to Steve

QuoteOriginally 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  :biglaugh:  

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.

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

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.

QuoteOriginally 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.

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.  ;)

(http://www.deerhunting.ws/drawskel.jpg)

Thanks James for the pic. that's great stuff....HH

But ya always want to prepare for the worst, that is a non perfect hit ie: scapula or whatever.  and James there are ribs bones over the vitals.. small but they are bones... I will repeat what I said about a million posts ago. Doc is to be commended for his work and sharing it with us . take it as Gospel, or use it as a guide or not at all, but he has put alot of work and money into this. I went with a little heavier gear after first reading his first tests and saw a increase in my recovery rate, I wish i could always make the textbook shot but i do slip up on occasion. its that shot where I want to put his findings into play.  Thanks to Ashby

Last time I checked, there's a great deal of deer hunting that takes place from trees, James..in fact, if its possible to believe it, I think MOST deer hunting takes place from trees, hence, hitting the scapula does come into play a great deal in whitetail hunting.

I didn't say Ed made GREAT PERSONAL SACRIFICE, STEVEB. What I did say was that he has done it without being paid to do it by anyone, and doesn't deserve to be maligned or have his character impuned because someone else can't accept that fact.

Usually those who can't see someone else doing something feel that way because THEY wouldn't do it.  

Ed's gotten to hunt a heck of a lot, travel to neat places, write it off as a business expense I am sure...but I've seen what he drives, wears, eats, and where he sleeps and if you think he's making some great living off this, you're just going to have to take my word for it...he could do an awful lot better for a lot less effort.

James don't you shot heavy broadheads on skinny shafts? I know the design of Treesharks aren't the "optimum" according to the reports but alot of what you already do seems to fit into Ashby's reports.
Just a note. Phantoms are good heads and I would bet that Fred Eichler DOES get compensation for using them and most of the products he hunts with.
I've hunted enough to know that weird things happen in the woods when arrows are shot, if someone wants to try to prepare for worse case scenarios, it doesn't mean they will now take poor shots because the SUPER broadhead will make up for their inaccuracies.

Owlbait I am not trying dispute the doctors ideas about any of his findings.I agree with most everything he has written.I just don't agree with the way it is presented as the only or best way for guys to set up for hunting deer and smaller game like most of us hunt here.Just because that is the best way to kill a large animal does not automaticly make it better for a thin skinned deer.I just don't like new archers coming on these sites and getting told that is the only way to kill stuff.If I was going to hunt a huge animal where busting bone was the only way to kill them I would set up that way.The problem comes up when new guys follow all these guide lines and go deer hunting they think they are shooting armor piercing rounds and can just hit an animal anywhere because they are going to get penitration.When in fact the only time you will need any of that is if you make a bad shot selection and shoot out of the kill zone.

Dave a sharp broadheads cut through ribs on deer and hogs.The cut very easy so there is not bones to break.

Ray I know most deer hunting is done from a tree and that is how I always hunt.I also know the only way you can shoot through the scapula and still hit the kill zone is if the deer is under you and quarteing or faceing you.Any other time you have hit too high and missed vitals even though you get a passthrough.That void you hear so much about between the lungs and the spine is always a hit above the spine where people shot too high.  :)  When someone shoots a deer in the shoulder and arrows bounce out it is because they missed and if the arrow penitrated they still would not have recovered the animal. jmo

ThanksJames. You know I still profess to wwjwd (what would James Wrenn do)  :biglaugh:

:biglaugh:  Now that is funny Owlbait!  ;)  

Yes I love the skinny carbons and big broadheads.They do have a higher FOC because big heads are heavy.Because the arrows are on the heavy side I can shoot wide broadheads on them and still get ample penitration when needed from legal weight bows.I have also shot arrows that were under 400gns that had less FOC but worked very well.I shoot small broadheads on lightweight fast arrows.I feel that even with a lot of speed a light arrow and big broadhead is a bad combination but size the broadhead to the arrow and it is still deadly.

Can I ask a question?  What broadhead's were you guys shooting BEFORE the good Doc's reports came out?  

I'm just curious, not bashing either side.  I would like to see how many overnight conversions there were.  Does anyone feel guilty because Grizzly heads were available long before you new that was the way to go?  Would a guy like me need to throw out his 15 year old two blade heads and go buy the single bevels?  I guess I might do just that, but honestly some of you guys have been using single bevel along time.  I recon the rest of us are not speaking from any particular experience so... why so dogmatic?

silly ???

Has anybody ever found a stone point that was napped on one side only ??

Talk about a dead horse,almost like comparing carbon's to wood's bla bla bla    :coffee:

Monterey. Yuo didn't come across as tooadversarial-I just didn't want to came across thgat way myself. Personally, I enjoy these discussions.
Regarding Ribteks.-A bit of anecdotal evidence that doesn't prove anything in particular. The most impresive bone cutting performaces I have "autopsied" were from a Bear Razorhead shot as a 2 blade and a Ribtek 125s. I understand the logic of smooth ferrules-particularly a smooth transition into the ferrule at the front. It is easy to see how stepped front ferrules could impede penetration......but there are always variables and I'm not certain that the skeleton ferrule on a Ribtek is a negative. For one thing thetrailing edge/leading edge geometry is such that the transitions are pretty smooth. for another most of ust have witnessed the difference in multiple impact versus sustained force in driving weges or loosening bolts. I claim no proof that a Ribtek ferule is better just suggest thta it might be. I also note that the reinforcing ribs are such that they MAY induce rotation like a right single bevel ( I didn't observe that rotation in wound channels but confess that I never looked for it.) In any case, I know of one instance where a Ribtek from a light draw weight bow blew through the scapular ridge on a light animal(Javelina). It doesn't prove anything other than they CAN do it. I have shot several animals with Ribteks with good performance.

Oh I agree Dan that all kinds of things happen.Like you I had rather have a little more than not enough. :)I am knocking anything anyone wants to use.We all have to find what works best for us.I am just giving my oppion on the subject like everyone else has and telling why I veiw things my way.I have shot a lot of broadheads so have used narrow STOS ect.I can tell you this that on a bad hit with any broadhead the bigger the head the more likly the chances of making a recovery.You are simply cutting more, putting more blood on the ground.More damage and more trail to follow.  :)  Sure you still need enough bow to get the job done but in most cases we all have plenty even for the bad hits.

I had a large hog lung about the time I dropped the string.One of those slow motion moments where you wanted to grap the attow back from the air.  :(  The Treeshark hit dead center the ham.It went though and hit the lower leg bone breaking it into and hitting dirt to stop.I was able to get behind him and give him a follow up shot that finished him off before he hit the thick stuff.Shooting a smaller broadhead would have done nothing to better the situation but that 2" wide broadhead slowed him down and left a lot of blood.More penitration when you can break the heaviest bone on an animal on exit is a mute point.I just hate to see people get caught up into thinking animals are built out of concrete or something.The biggest broadhead you can shoot through something will always be better than a small one stuck in the dirt as far as bringing something home. jmo

I haven't read ALL the posts on this thread but I have read alot of posts concerning Dr. Ashby's broadhead work.
It is amazing to me how ANYONE for any reason can argue with what he has proved with his work.

The most common argument seems to be "Perfect shot placement and sharp broadhead is all you need".  YA THINK? No kiddin'.  

Obviously Dr. Ashby's work is for the benefit of "not so perfect" shot placement, which we ALL make.

Having these ridiculous posts made by these  unsecure people is emabarrassing to the traditional and nontraditional bowhunting community.

I believe Dr. Ashby's work is one topic that is exempt from anyone else's opinion.  

Just read and learn. Period.

QuoteI believe Dr. Ashby's work is one topic that is exempt from anyone else's opinion

Well if that is the case it should not be put out on public forums for debate.  :)  No one is saying his work is not great.The debate comes when people think it is a cure all for thin skinned game like deer.The doctor is pretty straight forward about the kind of animals he shoots.His methods seem to be the very best for them.Some of us however do not believe it is the best for every type of animal on the planet.That is where any debate about it comes in.And even then it is just giving another point of veiw not to discredit his findings for large heavy boned animals.

Jedi.. shootin zwickey deltas before  and Zwickey deltas after... on deer, hogs turkey and bear...

James...What I am saying is that his work is not up for debate.  If I am not mistaken this forum is not here for debating ONLY.  It is to provide ignorant people like myself with valuable information.  
I understand what you are saying about NOT NEEDING single beveled Grizzlies to kill deer. I do not disagree with that or with people using other setups.  Sure, there are other broadhead setups that will work fine.  
When determining the best, what setup is going to penetrate whitetail deer better than the best setup for the Asian Water Buffalo.
We are in a unique situation where we can work backwards.  From the very best broadhead setup we can work backwards to determine what to use to harvest smaller animals we like to hunt.
But what we can't do, AS OF RIGHT NOW, is work forward and find a broadhead setup that is better for the "less than perfect" shot for any animal on the planet.
Richie

Dang I can't believe there are eight pages of people with opinions.  Now if you want to express fact with backing.  Go out and document a few hundred kills with your favorite setups.  Document arrow placement, conditions, do an necropsy on the animal to determine cause of death then take the time to put it all together.  Now publish your findings and I for one will do a comparison to the findings that the good Dr. has documented.

Then we can make an educated decision without conjecture and unsupported opinion.

Let us know when your done and we'll take a few moments to review your years of data and findings.  Then we will critisize your report because it doesn't match my favorite setup.

LOL

Mike

Richie I know what you ment.Hunting season is over and we are just killing time on these threads.  :)  I usually stay away from these debates because I know they really don't matter.In the end we are all going to do what we think is best and there really is no right or wrong if it works. It is all good. :clapper:

QuoteOriginally posted by Tree man:
 I have "autopsied" were from a Bear Razorhead shot as a 2 blade and a Ribtek 125s. I understand the logic of smooth ferrules-particularly a smooth transition into the ferrule at the front. It is easy to see how stepped front ferrules could impede penetration......but there are always variables and I'm not certain that the skeleton ferrule on a Ribtek is a negative. For one thing thetrailing edge/leading edge geometry is such that the transitions are pretty smooth. for another most of ust have witnessed the difference in multiple impact versus sustained force in driving weges or loosening bolts. I claim no proof that a Ribtek ferule is better just suggest thta it might be. I also note that the reinforcing ribs are such that they MAY induce rotation like a right single bevel ( I didn't observe that rotation in wound channels but confess that I never looked for it.) In any case, I know of one instance where a Ribtek from a light draw weight bow blew through the scapular ridge on a light animal(Javelina). It doesn't prove anything other than they CAN do it. I have shot several animals with Ribteks with good performance.

Thanks for the Ribtek background.  I'm still willing to consider using my 190's if I can find a way to smooth up the ferrule.

When they first came out there was a lot of talk about wood shafts blowing through the ferrules.  That concerned me so I did a test shooting two into a pile of bricks with a 65# wheel bow.  The POC did bust through  :(   but by using a hardening agent I was able to defeat that problem.  Here's some pics.

 (http://www.mikeswillowlake.com/images/MinWax/notbroke1.JPG)

 (http://www.mikeswillowlake.com/images/MinWax/notbroke2.JPG)

These two are the plain untreated POC.

 (http://www.mikeswillowlake.com/images/MinWax/brokeshaft.JPG)

 (http://www.mikeswillowlake.com/images/MinWax/bentek.JPG)

These two are a poc shaft hardened with min wax wood hardener.

The bent head and broken shaft did not overly concern me since the arrows were fishtailing a lot from the wheel bow.  It hit the bricks on an angle and of course the bricks were not especially straight either.

This convinced me that I could use the Ribteks without concern for the poc jamming through the ferrules as long as the poc was treated or footed.

Maybe the ferrules could be smoothed with some jb weld or even ferrule cement?

Interestingly, a lot of gus looked at these pics and came to very different conclusions which were pretty much based on their pre-existing opinions!  :)

Quote...."In the end we are all going to do what we think is best and there really is no right or wrong if it works. It is all good".

You could not be more correct.

It is perfectly fine to choose NOT to take the advice and put into practice Dr. Ashby's work.  
It is the people that choose to debate his findings and say they have better that are so ridiculous.

Wingnut...correctamundo.

That is precisely why the Dr.'s work is not debatable.  Bring in better studies and then it will be.

Back to it being gosphel - makes my point about extremists at both ends.

Well, to say it is not "debatable" and to say it is gospel are two different things.  The fact that his is the only study of it's magnitude available makes it difficult to debate given there is not another point of view so well documented.

If that makes any sense!

I love 160gr Ribteks.  There...I said it.  I'll shoot anything in North America with one and remain totally worry free.

As for the good Doctor's finding... What's not to like?  It's a study about bowhunting!  Take from it what you want, or nothing at all.  It's up to you. There's nothing to dispute.

Maybe your favorite broadhead manufacturer will find some piece of FREE study information that can make their heads even better.  Wouldn't that be nice?

One of the great things about trad archery is the number of great products we have a choice of using. I like Grizzly 160's because they are tough, easy to sharpen, fly like field points and penetrate like a hot knife through butter. That said, if Grizzlys were not around I would have many other choices that I would feel just as confident with making meat. Eclipse, Bear, Ace, zwickey etc.All good products and all capable of a humane kill if you do your job. Aint it great to have all these great products to choose from?

Actually there aren't many broadheads that are NOT capable of a humane kill if we do our job by making a perfect shot.  
Richie

anyone one here prefer their own home-made heads over any other?

Wow what a nice deer.  :thumbsup:

I don't ever recall Dr Ashby claiming any more than his test results on large African type game seemed very scientific and detailed for something as trivial as a broadhead to me.

All the speculation and debate on what broadhead is and/or isn't needed for North American game is conjured up by bowhunters not Dr Ashby

Dang DTala didn,t anybody tell ya that ya can't kill a deer with a rock LOL nice buck!!

I shoot my own homemade heads if I,m in a stand.I'm concerned with loosing them after they blow out the other side into never never land if I was on the ground.At least from a stand I know where it's going after it's job is done

popcorn's starting to get a bit stale on this one don't ya think??

Rico,

If you think broadheads are trivial, then you need to think again.

A bow is just the rocket launcher...the ONLY thing you use that comes in contact with the game and creates a kill, IS A BROADHEAD.

Its the most important, by a tremendously significant margin- piece of equipment in your 'kit':everything else pales in comparison, and only your shafts coming close.

If you cannot see that outcome testing requires  you make assessments by testing things at the extreme outer limits in order to create an obvious outcome- to learn what will and will not happen to something like a broadhead, then you need to adjust your thinking cap.

If all you tested on was whitetails you would have to do testing till the end of time in order to have enough oddball results to show something significant one way or the other. On the other hand, testing on the biggest bones available, allows you to achieve 'critical mass' on every shot.

And to those who say laboratory testing is the only way to prove something works or not,, then why do they have test pilots for airplanes?

Jedi...since Ed's first report came out in the form of The Natal Study during the mid- eighties...it would be obvious most began shooting them AFTER his reports.

I've been shooting Grizzlies for ten years...before that Simmons safaris, and before that Zwickey Deltas. Dabbled with lots of others all during that time..as many do.

Troy, that's just awesome!

who was the guy that was doing the bloodtrail study, i would like to hear an update on that. i think the debate on penetration has been proven, idon't think anyone would argue that a large 3 blade isn't going to go threw an animal like a little two blade.

the real debate is do you get a good enough bloodtrail to be worth the added penetration.

that is the ...point.. partially; of the single bevel. It is a two blade that leaves an 'S' shape hole and that has the capacity to leave a far better trail than a two blade double bevel; or a three blade that sacrifices penetration; and in many cases I have seen; an exit hole.
Nothing gets us through the winter better than a broadhead debate  :)

so right, Brian.

I sat for a couple hours yesterday with Ed at an archery shoot and discussed this a good bit with him.

It seems the next segment is due out soon..and sounds as if its some of the most compelling and interesting information so far.

bm22..Ed is doing a bloodtrail study. It requires thousands of reports before conclusions can be made and he is only a couple years into it.

Ray yes a broadhead is trival compared to the effects of some new super drug. When I read that some suggesting that Ashbys test results are not scientific enough I think that his is damn fine work and great detail for something as simple as a broadhead.

I got you, now, Rico. I wasn't thinking in 'greater world' terms as you were. No offense intended. I appreciate the clarification.

Please pardon my awkwardness - this is my first post on any forum - ever.

Dr. Ashby's latest interview in Traditional Bowhunter was interesting to me because of the references to increases in penetration with lightweight bows. (I shoot a 48# Dwyer Defiant and a 50# ChekMate Longhorn longbow).

When I started to look around for arrows with all of the properties he recommends, it got discouraging in a hurry.

Forgewood seems to be closed down and up for sale, and Grizzly broadheads seem to also be out of stock everywhere I've looked; what are others doing to follow his recommendations, especially for lighter bows?

I sharpen my Grizzlies and single bevel hills by sharpening the bevel side first with a file, then I lay the file flat on the flat side and take the paint off and push the up to check the burr, take a few light strokes on the bevel and then rip it from back to front with corner of the file. We get pass throughs, big holes and good blood trails.  Anybody else sharpen them like that?

Jim..  don't get discouraged.  A lot of Trad folks really thrive on a "do it yourself" attitude, if you couldn't already tell that.  We have our ways and sometimes it is tough to get away from that.

Although I think highly of Dr. Ashby's information...don't forget it because it is truly great stuff, the fact is your equipment can be very deadly without single bevels or 650 grains or 20% FOC.  Equipment like yours has been doing fine for centuries.

Get good at your shooting, get your equipment sharp and well tuned,  get close to your prey,  get (and take only) good shots, and you should have no problems at all.  More than that is...well... gravy !

In the mean time....sure... try to use Ashby's hard earned information to help with ideas... but don't let it mire you in grief.
ChuckC