Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dr ashby up dates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by DRT View Post
    I had the same arrow get different result at similar distances on similarly sized animals.
    If the science were so exact I wouldn't blow through both sides of a 200lb boars shield with one shot then only get 10" of penetration on the next one.
    Yes, some of the math works. And if you are the only man on earth hunting an elephant with a recurve or one of the few doing the same on Cape buffalo it probably will help you. But out of the millions of other bowhunters it is over thinking the equation. If not the tens of thousands of deer and pigseach year killed with mechanical broadheads on the front of arrows at 7.5gpp and 11%foc would still be alive because nobody would get enough penetration.

    Gary
    Yes, this is geared toward very large animals, and, yes, you can use considerably lighter arrows and different broadheads to adequately take smaller game. I disagree with you that he is overthinking it though. All of us make less than perfect shots, and this is where the things he discusses come into play for the average bowhunter. I don't use a 650 grain arrow, don't shoot a single bevel broadhead, tapered arrows, etc.; but I do shoot a 125 grain fixed blade head with a FOC of about 15%; and that's not because I need it all the time, but rather I need it when I don't do my part as well as I should.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by DRT View Post
      I had the same arrow get different result at similar distances on similarly sized animals.
      If the science were so exact I wouldn't blow through both sides of a 200lb boars shield with one shot then only get 10" of penetration on the next one.
      Yes, some of the math works. And if you are the only man on earth hunting an elephant with a recurve or one of the few doing the same on Cape buffalo it probably will help you. But out of the millions of other bowhunters it is over thinking the equation. If not the tens of thousands of deer and pigseach year killed with mechanical broadheads on the front of arrows at 7.5gpp and 11%foc would still be alive because nobody would get enough penetration.

      Gary
      You didn’t get the same result because it was not the same animal in the same position and you prolly didn’t hit him in the same place. Common sence has to come into play.

      It’s ok you don’t understand it. It’s not for everyone. The information dr ashby has done is not for the absolute. Nor is it the only way or the only answer. He just gave data on away to improve on what you have if you need it. If you don’t then why are you even looking at it.

      It’s sad that people spend years trying to help others, and people that have never spent any time at all testing or even have a clue on how to test, come in and crap on it.

      Here’s an example. It’s around 118 points of data taken on each shot. So add that up on how long it takes per animal to collect this data.

      Now as far as your one arrow blew through and it didn’t on the next animal shows just by simple reasoning you have the wrong set up. If you had the right set up it would have gone through both. :-)

      Please understand I’m not trying to be a jerk. But you are the type that gives archery a bad name. You are closed minded. But that is what is so great about life. You can be this way.

      Comment


        #18
        Appreciate you Eric, thanks for keeping it real and spreading the Good Word.


        Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by muddyfuzzy View Post
          Appreciate you Eric, thanks for keeping it real and spreading the Good Word.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
          Lots more coming this year.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by enewman View Post
            You didn’t get the same result because it was not the same animal in the same position and you prolly didn’t hit him in the same place. Common sence has to come into play.

            It’s ok you don’t understand it. It’s not for everyone. The information dr ashby has done is not for the absolute. Nor is it the only way or the only answer. He just gave data on away to improve on what you have if you need it. If you don’t then why are you even looking at it.

            It’s sad that people spend years trying to help others, and people that have never spent any time at all testing or even have a clue on how to test, come in and crap on it.

            Here’s an example. It’s around 118 points of data taken on each shot. So add that up on how long it takes per animal to collect this data.

            Now as far as your one arrow blew through and it didn’t on the next animal shows just by simple reasoning you have the wrong set up. If you had the right set up it would have gone through both. :-)

            Please understand I’m not trying to be a jerk. But you are the type that gives archery a bad name. You are closed minded. But that is what is so great about life. You can be this way.
            I'm not closed minded. I also only blindly follow one guy.
            My set up is well tuned and I blow through most animals. But there are also well versed people who claim no measurable rotation is created with a single bevel head inside the animal. There are people who say the math on FOC plus inaccurate because the point of diminishing returns starts between 19 and 22 percent. I think that much of what he surmises is helpful. But not all of it is absolute.


            Gary

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by DRT View Post
              I'm not closed minded. I also only blindly follow one guy.
              My set up is well tuned and I blow through most animals. But there are also well versed people who claim no measurable rotation is created with a single bevel head inside the animal. There are people who say the math on FOC plus inaccurate because the point of diminishing returns starts between 19 and 22 percent. I think that much of what he surmises is helpful. But not all of it is absolute.


              Gary
              Nothing is absolute. Nothing in the data given is absolute. And doc never states its absolute. This is where most people get confused. Just like you, you think it’s absolute. It’s not. It’s just data to help people build better arrows for penetration if it’s needed.

              As far as following someone blindly. I don’t think anyone does,

              As far as rotation being measurable. Well they do not rotate like a drill bit. Most heads get between 90° to 180° and 180° is not often. Rotation all depends on how dence the part of animal it’s going through.

              As far as foc between 19 to 22 is diminishing. I have no clue what your talking about. I’ve shot from less then 10 to 35%. At 35% I could shot bareshaft with broadhead on it. But I didn’t like the amount of weight on that set up. It was around 900gr with 670 of it in the tip. I still could shoot that much weight 50 yards no problem prolly a little further. So the only diminishing part of foc is having a weight that is more then what you are comfortable with. No other cons to it.
              Last edited by enewman; 01-24-2019, 07:03 PM.

              Comment


                #22
                Dr ashby up dates

                Originally posted by DRT View Post
                I'm not closed minded. I also only blindly follow one guy.
                My set up is well tuned and I blow through most animals. But there are also well versed people who claim no measurable rotation is created with a single bevel head inside the animal. There are people who say the math on FOC plus inaccurate because the point of diminishing returns starts between 19 and 22 percent. I think that much of what he surmises is helpful. But not all of it is absolute.


                Gary

                In the words of “Jewels” please allow me to retort.

                Speaking on measurable rotation inside an animal I think you are not understanding the intention of the single bevel profile. If rotates great, if it doesn’t that’s great as well it is still cutting and lacerating tissue causing trauma. However, there is clearly rotational force imparted when the single bevel encounters heavy bone which is clearly, and more importantly, well documented by numerous sources. This is why ALL the breaks exhibit the same fracture profile which is caused by the unequal edge pressure exerted when resistance is met. Simply put the more resistance that a single bevel encounters the more the rotational forces are exhibited. I only shoot them under that pretense and only when I need to.

                As far as returns diminishing starting between 19-22% that is simply not the case. What is the case is that people playing with EFOC builds simply bite off more than they can chew. The end result is a build that doesn’t fly well and is difficult tune and thus deemed ineffective. It takes knowledge and experience to build an arrow that will behave properly at those percentages. Lots of folks think it just as simple as loading up an arrow with a ton of tip weight and calling it good. There is simply no basis for that statement and there are TONS of folks proving otherwise.

                The fact that the Needle on FOC discussion is moving in a proactive direction clearly shows that more and more people or reaping the benefits of running EFOC setups. If it’s not for you then so be it but let’s not act like it doesn’t have merit. Shooting most NA species simply does not stress the arrow system enough for it to manifest any inadequacy that is there lurking. Not to mention any argument against it is in direct conflict against the premise that our ancestors used in building many of the most lethal arrow setups in the history of mankind and I think we can all agree they were better hunters than any of us today.... maybe they were on to something....





                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                Last edited by muddyfuzzy; 01-24-2019, 07:39 PM.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Do you know how many inconsistencies there are in what you posted? Have you seen how small and light most stone arrow heads are? Do you think our NA ancestors separated their shafts by spine and grains per inch? Did they have a calculator on the teepee wall they referred to to get their set ups perfectly tuned? I really doubt it. I'm fairly sur they were good hunters. They got close to game and didn't have to take 40 yard shots or string walk or worry about their fixed crawl. Archery has come a long way the last few decades. And Ashby has been providing archers good information for a long time.
                  As far as single bevel heads I've had less than stellar blood trails and cutting diameter is not adequate imo.
                  I'd say splitting bone is better with a single bevel head but if I hit that solid of bone I missed my spot. If I were hunting Cape Buffalo or water buffalo I would use them but then I would have a tracker and PH to handle the meager blood trail.
                  A good head like a Simmons or even a Piledriver will give you a big gash and bust through ribs and shoulders of all of NA game.
                  In order to get an inch and a half or more cut in Ashby math you would need a 4.5 to 5 inch long head. And maybe that would work too if I shot 75lbs but at 50 it would be a bit much.
                  I'm not saying the guys not smart. I'm just saying I glean the stuff that I can use and works in my hunting world and am glad for that.

                  Gary

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by DRT View Post
                    Do you know how many inconsistencies there are in what you posted? Have you seen how small and light most stone arrow heads are? Do you think our NA ancestors separated their shafts by spine and grains per inch? Did they have a calculator on the teepee wall they referred to to get their set ups perfectly tuned? I really doubt it. I'm fairly sur they were good hunters. They got close to game and didn't have to take 40 yard shots or string walk or worry about their fixed crawl. Archery has come a long way the last few decades. And Ashby has been providing archers good information for a long time.
                    As far as single bevel heads I've had less than stellar blood trails and cutting diameter is not adequate imo.
                    I'd say splitting bone is better with a single bevel head but if I hit that solid of bone I missed my spot. If I were hunting Cape Buffalo or water buffalo I would use them but then I would have a tracker and PH to handle the meager blood trail.
                    A good head like a Simmons or even a Piledriver will give you a big gash and bust through ribs and shoulders of all of NA game.
                    In order to get an inch and a half or more cut in Ashby math you would need a 4.5 to 5 inch long head. And maybe that would work too if I shot 75lbs but at 50 it would be a bit much.
                    I'm not saying the guys not smart. I'm just saying I glean the stuff that I can use and works in my hunting world and am glad for that.

                    Gary
                    No one is telling you what you are using is wrong. If your set up is working for you and your happy with it then your good.

                    Dr Ashby has always stated. Build your arrow with as much mass and foc that gives you the trajectory you want and need. That’s it. That means if that’s a 425gr. Arrow at 12% foc then you are good.

                    As far as the head. The 3to1 is based on a 1” head. So it would be hard to build a 4.5 head. Now if there was one, I’m sure I would try it. Lol.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      You obviously haven’t really read up on Ashby as he cites numerous instances of primitive hunters using UEFOC projectiles. A brief lesson in history clearly shows that Native tribes in Africa used a far more aggressive approach than their North American counterparts. I concede the fact that most single bevel heads are capable of leaving a marginal blood trial, I have been on this side of it before but so have a lot of other folks with a lot of other head designs. But I love the two blade, the increased MA and associated increase in penetration.

                      Pretty familiar with the Simmons, I shoot the 175 Tiger with a finished weight of 550 at an even 20%. I run it all bro, the EFOC, a solid above average arrow weight with a big chunk of steel on it. It’s a great setup despite being less than optimal in your estimation. I’ve also harvested some pretty large game with it and think I’m pretty well informed of its capabilities at this point.




                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                      Comment


                        #26
                        This deserves a bump

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Thanks for posting the new update. Great to see so much more data supporting the existing research.

                          I have lived through the aspect of having as much FOC and overall weight as I could find acceptable in shooting performance (speed/trajectory). Started with and still use a 680-grain arrow with about 27% FOC,and use a single bevel Tuffhead (300-grain, 3-to-1 Cut on contact, with Tanto tip). That hasn't changed, but the 50-lb bow shot them too slowly; so did the 55-lber. The 70-lb recurve zips 'em out there just fine, though!

                          And, I do know what Gary means about blood trails, though, and have also gotten some three-blade VPAs (also 300 grain) as well to try for better blood trails. However, it was a two-blade that killed a large hog with plenty of penetration through the shield and a 100-yard track of puddles of blood. Some of the smaller hogs on that same hunt were tough to track despite complete pass-throughs. Hope to try out the VPAs soon.

                          eNewman, please convey best wishes to Dr. Ashby when you visit. Hope he's doing well.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            It's all about keeping the energy in a straight path and how much energy you need to drive the head you desire through the animal you desire.
                            It helps if the head and arrow stay together.
                            Foc helps keep the energy in a straight path- less energy deflection on impact due to arrow flex.
                            I still remember David rip over @ Santa Fe archery telling me about getting a pass through on his cape buffalo with a 3 blade muzzy.

                            Just use common sense. If you don't have any follow Ashby

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Here's a link to the rest of the Ashby studies:

                              Ashby Lethality Studies The complete collection of works by Dr. Ed Ashby on broadhead penetration and arrow lethality.


                              They also have an entire forum on the topic: "Friends of FOC". Not a place to slam Ashby, btw.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Word...

                                Ill drink the koolaid and ride the comet. What color Nikes does Dr Ashby want me to wear?

                                Thanks for posting the informative article Enewman.

                                Just do it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X