What is the best Arrow Penetration Test? (with Dr. Ed Ashby)

[@Iamme0007]

Dr. Ashby is a gem. Thank you RF for all you men are doing. Against the grain is a lonely road. Especially against the money flow of the archery industry. It's hard to believe everybody hasn't ran with Dr. Ed's data. Thank you for all you both have done. Please keep educating.

[@PersonalBestOutdoors]

This man still blows me away. Definitely a very anylitical mind. I don't understand what is so fundamentally wrong with our community that so many can just completely disregard and ignore all of the effort, experience, data, and decades of research being published for their disposal completely free. Having hunted with a bow since 17 i can confidently say that Dr. Ed Ashby has forgotten more about bow hunting than i will ever know. Troy, again; i thank you for your effort and contributions to bring this invaluable gold mine into this community. Working with Doc to bring this info into a digestible platform is one of your greatest ideas.

[@moneyandtimefreedom3352]

Rifle hunters have data on 1,000’s of different rounds and calibers. They pick the one best suited for the animal the are hunting and the conditions and range. They look at fps and foot pounds of energy at different points and wind drift. They have found that certain calibers work for bigger animals at longer distances. I.E. a .223 w/ 55 gr. At 500yrds fps/velocity 1548.3 foot pounds energy 292.7 A .300 win mag w/180 grn at 500 yrds fps/Velocity 2,339 foot pounds Energ 2,187 The archery community needs to realize arrows are essentially long bullets and need to understand the arrow and broad head data so we can shoot the right combination depending on whether we are hunting bull elk or shooting targets under perfect conditions. It’s time we become responsible for the arrows we shoot. There is a reason gun hunters don’t use light bullets even though they are moving fast and flat to shoot big game and 3-400+ yards. Vs a larger caliber with a heavier bullet with that bullet built to stay intact once that bullet hits the animal. The same guys arguing the science of archery will know everything about the caliber and bullet they shoot. They often have all the data taped to their rifle. Why, because they have read the charts worked up a proper load. Yet when they shoot their bow they let their ego determine what they shoot. Come on archers let’s move into the 21st century and start to understand the science and apply it properly to what, where you are hunting. My experience 45+ years hunting mule deer, elk, white tail, bear, rabbits, ducks, geese, grouse, fish/carp. I hunt spot stalk, tree stands. I’ve learned there is a set up for the different species and where and how they will be hunted. One bow and arrow set up does not fit all situations. Yes you will have to re sight in your setup but that’s part of archery. A 30-06 can shoot super light arrows or super heavy and depending what you are hunting you’ll need to sight the gun in per bullet. Bows,arrows and broad heads are no different. Rant Over 😊

[@waynestevenson9613]

ZZZZzzzz

[@shredfreak83]

@@waynestevenson9613 The archery products are sponsored by manufacturers that want to sell products, yet fails to provide any data on said products that has any relevance. As long as it's marketable it's good to go. Guns are a completely different story since they need to get military contracts and provide not only functional guns but also data on why the military should spend $$$ on their products. Saying shit goes dead faster ain't gonna cut it i assume. 🤣

[@RanchFairy]

@@moneyandtimefreedom3352 Logical comment

[@ThirdLawPair]

There's also guys who think they know the science a lot better than they actually do. Some of whom talk about the data all day long, but completely botch the very basics of data analysis.

[@RanchFairy]

@@ThirdLawPair I've found that you can calculate and postulate but man!!!!! You launch an arrow and it often becomes "wait a minute, that is not what we thought". The greatest challenge is to accept what you see and repeat it....then say.... WAIT FOR IT. (no one wants this!!) "Why was I wrong?" Then go find out.

[@johnathonarnold9070]

Listening to this while stropping my broadheads and hunting knives. Youth weekend is this weekend and after that bow season opens in va🎉

[@ashadow315]

Really enjoy all the info being put out these days. The one thing I’ve heard out of the Ranch Fairy Channel, not in this video but others, is how all these other arrow tests into hard media etc don’t show or prove anything. While I agree that ballistics gel shows nothing, most arrows penetrate almost the exact same distance in it, the tough impact tests into uniform media do provide valuable information on the structural integrity of integrity of a broadhead. If Broadhead A holds up to thin steel plates, MDF, angled shots into MDF and a concrete block with no damage, and Broadhead B gets edge chatter, loses blades, or blows up on the concrete, then indeed Broadhead A is the stronger more reliable head. Isn’t over kill for structural performance? Maybe, but it’s a fairly uniform media for testing structural integrity. That information combined with information ai gain on this channel have driven my broadhead selection and arrow choices the last 3 years, and I’ve been 100% successful including 2 bull elk.

[@tjb50cal]

awesome truth conversation between you both, looking forward to more and future testing

[@woodzman991]

Love the info, thanks to Dr Ed and the big R. F.

[@marcschafer7728]

We are always happy about Dr. Asby's explanations, they are the basis for our prime RAM Broadheads.😎

[@seantnper881]

Dr.Ashby, sir you are a badass!

[@mikesweat2555]

I’d love to hear more about the bullet testing and see any data as well. Absolutely blew my mind with the first discussion( I listened to that segment at least 30 times). Funny how the firearms industry is just like the archery industry in that speed and kinetic energy is all that matters.

[@OldDerelict]

That would be lengthy. An article about the testing with the .22 Hornet and .22-250 was published in Magnum magazine (South Africa) in the mid-1990s, but I doubt it can be located online. There's one misprint in the article. They say the testing involved 200 Impala, and it should have read 2000 Impala. There are a couple of side notes I’ll add. We also did tests utilizing the 130-grain X-Bullets to test the effect of twist rate on terminal performance, with a custom-barreled .300 Savage having a 1:16 twist, a .308 having a 1:12 twist, and a .30-06 having a 1:10 twist (with all three rifles running at the same velocity, plus or minus five fps). Gregor Woods (at the time, Gregor was the Shooting Editor of Magnum magazine, later editor of Magnum magazine) repeated our research with .45 caliber rifles on buffalo. The outcome of his testing concurred with ours regarding impact velocity and penetration. Gregor didn't look at the twist rate; his interest was in impact velocity and penetration. You can find a bit about it in Gregor’s book, Rifles for Africa, starting on page 121. His book is out of print, but you might try Abe’s Books. I have acquired several out-of-print books from them.

[@ThirdLawPair]

This mantra you've learned from Dr. Ed of "I don't know. Let's test it" is a good one. Why do you not apply it to the *variability* in a deer's movement? That variability is, after all, what makes whitetail deer so interesting to hunt.

[@RanchFairy]

@@ThirdLawPair Do tell us how to test 100% inconsistency That one is hard. Not one man on earth can tell us what will happen. You can decide to build arrows that have the highest likelihood of succeeding when “things go wrong” - Dr Ed

[@ThirdLawPair]

@@RanchFairy Great question. Two follow up questions: 1) Are you familiar with the differences between experimental versus observational research methodology? 2) Are you familiar with methods for measuring variance? Going back to the tank analogy. You've mentioned that tanks and other military technology work so well because they've been subjected to rigorous testing. A key feature of that methodological rigor is that they use proper methods for measuring variance.

[@RanchFairy]

@@ThirdLawPair These are new concepts to me using your named type of methodology. But I believe I am playing on the same field and may not know where first base resides. I'll give you an example that was pretty wild and see if I land inside your definitions (you are gonna make me smarter and I am a fan of that!!) All arrows at launch, at the bow, are +/- 5% KE. It's so close that it is not even a measurable consideration to change arrows. I assumed (at one time) that meant it was all the same for penetration. KE is the same so it's the same. But I am curious and built some heavier stuff and tinker this, sharpen that.....yadda yada. Now when I went field testing, in hunting situations at the lab, I kept seeing properly tuned higher mass projectiles (with better Broadheads that don't eat energy) fly through critters like they weren't there and skip off into the brush. 550 grains+ is where this became an outlier on meat, live shots. BUT, back then I was a bit baffeled.....the KE is all the same...because it was - mathematically. Absolute fact today and then. I just kept wondering why. This is long before the RF channel. Start the channel because of what I was seeing in the field testing (I didn't know EXACTLY why but it was working), meet some smart people and was encouraged to look downrange. Then we looked at Momentum, which is NOT flat - at launch. Mathematically today and then. And as of today here I am. Nothing is set in stone. I am in a continuous learning mindset and that won't change. Is that the same functional testing within your definitions. (Good stuff man!!)

[@ThirdLawPair]

​@@RanchFairy It touches on what I'm talking about. I'm glad you are in a mindset to learn. That's always a good place to be. To the first point about methodology. In physics sometimes you are in a lab and you control certain variables such that you can tinker with one particular variable and measure the outcome. This is like the experimental testing you do with your radar. In other areas of physics, you don't control any of the variables. You get a telescope and you look at the stars and the black holes and galaxies and nebulas out there just doing what they do. Based on what you observe, you can collect hard evidence for the laws of physics without any controlled experimentation. This observational method of gathering hard evidence is useful for gaining a practical understanding of deer's movement. To the second point, you noted that the arrows are all +/- 5% KE. I can't tell from context whether you are saying with a change in arrow the KE only changes as much as 5%, or with a given arrow it can change as much as 5%. Either way, with any given setup there is still some variation from one arrow to the next. Same thing happens with bullets. I could buy very expensive ammunition, and if I get a very precises scale I can measure that there is some degree of variation in the bullet mass or the powder load from one round to another. It will be enough variation to measurably influence the size of the group. That variation is almost always going to be some kind of Bell Curve. For each shot, there is no way for me to know if that particular shot is on the high end or the low end of the bell curve. Does that mean that the degree of variation is totally unknowable? No. You use that knowledge to make choices about what equipment to use at a given range. An expert shooter will keep a log of their shots (a dope book) and note at what range they might need a rear rest or other special equipment to keep the group an acceptable size. If the variation is such that the group would be too large at a given range, you don't take the shot. The idea with variation is that each important variable is not really is set number, but a Bell Curve. Sometimes that Bell Curve is very narrow, like the mass of your arrow. Sometimes that Bell Curve is moderately wide, like the thickness and strength of a deer's scapula. Sometimes that Bell Curve is super wide, like the deer's motion. In any case, the important point is to collect enough data points to quantify the width of the Bell Curve. If the variation seems like a total mystery, that's when we say "I don't know, let's measure it"

[@brett6946]

Craig Boddington of outdoor life said he has witnessed hydrostatic shock or the nervous system response of immediately incapacitation to be around and above 2800 fps in bullets. Broadhead companies talking about hydro shock are simply uneducated. Thanks Ranch Fairy and Dr. Ashby!!

[@brett6946]

Been watching Ranch Fairy for a couple of years now. This fall I’m shooting a 650 grain Victory vap TKO 300 with 50 grain outsert, 300 grain VPA single bevel 2 blade for 650 grain total weight and bow is Hoyt Pro Defiant Turbo at 58 pounds 29 1/2” draw. Could pull an 80lb but why? Going to break shoulder bone or spine this year. Brett. Thanks Ranch Fairy and Dr Ashby.!

[@RanchFairy]

@@brett6946 Send us pictures! [e-mail]

[@killintime8431]

Ed is a king among men

[@JTFII]

Chris bee listening to this and taking notes for his next buffalo

[@jerryscray1789]

Bwaaaaa ha ha ha

[@RanchFairy]

@@JTFII We would have helped him. The whole ABF team and I would have gladly helped

[@AskLeRoy]

He KNEW he had enough KE because he used the hunting calculator 😂😂😂

[@RanchFairy]

@@AskLeRoy Then he did the test!! 🤣

[@twl10101]

He knew exactly what he was doing and had to learn the hard way.

[@african7498]

Reading through the comments I see a lot of discussion on CB. Lets look at FACTS. Momentum is what drives the arrow through the animal. Momentum is made up of velocity x mass. We all know the arrow does not get lighter - it is a constant weight. The velocity decreases with distance (drag from the air) and rapidly drops when it hits a denser medium like flesh and bone. That is where the constant mass comes into play - it does not get lighter but does slow down. The more the momentum on impact is determined by the mass rather than by velocity - the more reliable the penetration. A light fast arrow will shed speed and momentum more rapidly upon contact with the denser medium as more of its momentum is made up by the speed component - which is rapidly being lost. That is simple physics.

[@TradTech]

Awesome interview! Keep them coming! Has the Encyclopedia Ashby been published yet???? I want a signed collection.

[@gavinlybarger8056]

I used a bag target that is field point only and with my 600 grain arrow with a single bevel will go completely through but I tryed a 450 grain arrow with a G5 Montec and it only went in about 4-5 inches. Me and my hunting buddy’s have been using that to gauge penetration

[@gavinlybarger8056]

@@NODAK-x9x you are absolutely right I definitely over looked that so I just now put a montec on my heavy arrow and shot my bag and the broad head was now sticking out the back side of the bag and the fletching were pulled partially in the bag

[@kurtmeister8308]

Great video. Thank you to both Ed and Ranch Fairy. Ed, for a lot of your testing prior to compounds, what was your bow setup? I apologize if I missed it. Do you know draw weight and arrow velocity? Great content.

[@Don458Lott]

Dear Mr. Ranch Fairy, Have you ever thought about using the arrow fletchings to cut IF it is a pass thru or enters the animal. Years ago, I made a crossbow from plans in a very old Boy Mechanic book using a truck leaf spring for the bow and the bolts were made using very thin steel fletchings…What if the steel fletchings were sharpened for cutting and contoured for flight stabilization keeping them as light as possible for high FOC : Bolts should only slow down flight on them penetrating the skin! Just a thought! Don B. PS Keep up the excellent work!

[@jango_bmx11]

20:50 this right here is what catches people up on the study. I get that the entire goal is to determine what the most effective arrow setup is, and to do that you have to go to the most extreme test subject. However, the way people are going to apply the data is to build arrows for their target game animal. With that in mind, wouldn’t it make sense to do the test on different animals to see what changes are necessary to maintain an acceptable lethality? Which of the 12 factors can be compromised without sacrificing lethality? Obviously everyone is sensitive about mass, so what mass is acceptable for various game? If you can do that and start with whitetail, you immediately gain a ton more support for the ABF. As far as the difficulty in replicating data due to varying sizes within species, you do the same thing Dr. Ed did in the original study. With enough data points you eventually will notice a trend. Granted that’s easier said than done, especially with financial limitations

[@OldDerelict]

ABF would love to be able to do this (test on Whitetail deer), but some major problems are preventing us from doing so. Whitetail deer are relatively small animals; only a few shots can be taken at each animal. The major problem is access to enough whitetail deer to test on. We are all ears if you could let us know where we can legally access a few thousand whitetail deer for testing.

[@coryr1948]

​​@@OldDerelictI use your 12 factor arrow (maybe 11). I use vanes instead. I smoked the whitetail. Died within sight. Dragged it back before anyone made it back to camp. I help everyone else look for their deer. 😂 Edit: Thank you for everything you've done Ed. You and RF have been guiding me since my second year of hunting.

[@jango_bmx11]

@@OldDerelict yeah, that’s a tough issue. Couple ideas come to mind. High fence trophy buck properties often have doe culls where you could get a dozen or so at a time depending on the size of the herd. Similarly, State game and fish commission‘s often have cull hunts, especially around CWD zones, so maybe there could be an attempt to collaborate with them. Another idea would be to sit at a game check in station during bow season and take the data you can from the animals that get brought in. None of these are perfect solutions, but maybe, eventually you could gather the necessary amount of data points to form some kind of conclusion. I just hate to see the level of pushback you guys receive, from specifically the whitetail bow hunting community, knowing what it is you stand for. There’s so much confirmation bias going on in the “Speed kills“ community, the only thing that I see getting their support is actual field data on Whitetail deer. Best of luck, and God Bless, Dr. Ed!

[@ralphdeniscojr6198]

Thank you for the podcast just want to say the further you go down the arrow lethality rabbit the less lethal it's seeming.

[@coryr1948]

hole?

[@ryanburns3921]

How so?

[@jeffreywilson690]

Dr Ed Don't change, the same for rf

[@OldDerelict]

I'm just wondering if anyone realized I had my T-shirt on backward.

[@rohlfing63]

​@@OldDerelictheck we just figured you had carefully analyzed things and decided it worked better that way! 😂

[@aaronhall765]

At 22:12 compound arrow exiting Buffalo, this ain't going to work? Wait what? We need that arrow build 🎉? Was it noy 650 grains? This is what modern day Archery wants.❤🎉

[@OldDerelict]

Oh, we're way past that today. We're getting complete passthrough on thorax hits. See the 2022 and 2023 Supplemental reports.

[@twl10101]

Off subject and related to last video, but I'm glad Dr. Ashby mentioned CB by name. I hadn't seen anything about that until after it was mentioned. I had just started watching CB videos earlier this year but stopped because of his bs of calling bad shots perfect shots and other current issues in the bow hunting world. He is not the only one though, there are several other expert archers making piss poor shots on game and calling them great shots. I just hope people will wake up and do the right thing since CB put the last nail in the coffin for lots of Australian bow hunters. Luckily there is a video on youtube of an archer using a slow ass stick bow using an aluminum arrow setup and making an almost 50 yard shot and burying the arrow to the fletching on a doe that didn't go very far, that proves speed freaks are full of it.

[@greekmaster1001]

Cb = Chris bee?

[@brianpfleuger]

"As soon as I got arrow setups that were exiting a buffalo with a compound, you know, this ain't gonna work." I get the context of that statement, but that is hilarious. 😳😂

[@RanchFairy]

@@brianpfleuger You can’t measure a pass through Nor small changes to an arrow!

[@timbow50]

lol, a couple years back we used dead hogs propped like they were laying on the belly. We used a Sevr and a slick trick standard and a Magnus black Hornet. Arrow weight was 426 including 175 grain head setup. The black Hornet was the winner multiple times including some hits on the shoulder shield. These hogs were in the 175 to 200-225 class weight? Arrow speed was 267 fps. We shot the pigs at 15 yards. My young friends were devastated their Sevr heads weren’t worth a crap on pigs even when they shot their 460+ arrows at 70#’s. The Magnus heads out of their 70# bows had 100% pass thru hits. The results when they hit the shield werent that much better than my 62# bow. Onside shield penetration and buried deep in the far side shield. The slick trick came in second with great penetration too. It was a nasty blast.

[@RanchFairy]

@@timbow50 It’s a ton of work

[@ApexPredatorOutdoors]

Great Video. IMHO, A consistent medium is good for testing multiple arrows or broadheads against one another, but don't make good overall Specification tests. Shooting 10 arrows or Broadheads into an animal is not good for testing which arrow or broadheads work better because they are not at all consistent. BUT, once you narrow down which arrow is working best you can only test it on an animal. Much like rockets, you do scientific testing with engines with all of the variables the same fixed to a sled. You don't just start launching rockets before each part is tested individually in consistent conditions. All that is to say that both tests are good, and one without the other means you're missing data. To quote NASA, and expound: "No amount of simuation and lab testing can assure actual performance. Only testing in the real world environment can do so." Then I would add: "yet, it would be foolish to do only real-world environment testing without doing simulations first."

[@paulvega9893]

My opinion is yes. Faster to get on target and faster system to shoot.

[@RanchFairy]

@@paulvega9893 Well, test your opinion about 20 times and holler back. If it works - keep rolling man

[@markosnionakis7777]

What is Dr Ashby's opinion on 3 bladed broadheads? Both conventional single piece 3 blade, as well as some of the newer si gle bevel 3 blade heads that have recently hit the market. Would a single bevel 3 blade have the same effect as a single bevel 2 blade?

[@RanchFairy]

@@markosnionakis7777 Three blades were the worst performer in plan B in the testing. We haven’t tested single bevel 3 blades but I haven’t found one that will sharpen adequately. So that’s a no go

[@markosnionakis7777]

@@RanchFairy Thanks for the quick reply!! Was curious because i just saw thw vid abojt the 3 blade tuffhead and how easy it is to sharpen some of the 3 blade heads out on the market. Seemed like an appealing option for someone who wanted to start taking baby steps toward the right direction

[@RanchFairy]

@@markosnionakis7777 Our videos discuss the give and take of 3 blade but I wanted to address - even the video I did about my 3 blade SPECIFICALLY the simple bevel wedge 3 blades On plan A hits a long narrow 3 blade is great - one piece preferred and easy to sharpen - yes. Plan B - no

[@OldDerelict]

The only single-bevel broadhead we have tested to date is the Ozcut.Hurricane single-bevel. You can read the complete test results in the 2022 Supplemental Reports on our webpage, starting on page 59. It did not perform well and had an overall grade of F.

[@paulvega9893]

Dr. ASHBY is the recurve bow a better killer up close than modern archery equipment. Just in the fact if all variables are equal?

[@dillonhardiek170]

Around 22:00 minutes it’s stated that an adequate arrow system was found while testing with a compound but he had to drop back to a recurve with less momentum because he was getting pass throughs and voiding the penetration study with the compound. The only component of momentum that changed was the speed to get less penetration, yet it was stated in the last video that more speed does not mean more penetration?? I’m trying to wrap my head around this and I understand it’s not a set number that works for everything ie. 650 grains. There is obviously a tolerance around that number for example a 615 grain arrow at 290 fps would penetrate as efficiently or better as a 150 fps arrow at 650???

[@RanchFairy]

@@dillonhardiek170 Good question. That was literally the first thing I ever asked Ed when I met him I. Person. Verbatim. “So Ed is there a velocity we can achieve to reduce the arrow from 650 grains and 12 factors?” Literally he said “ I don’t know, we need to test it”. It’s a great response. So remember - with a 12 factor arrow - correct pass throughs (on smaller animals). But the nuance is getting results. So to compare say tip design or mechanical advantage or sharpness level of the broadhead and really drill down into the best total lethality based performance “package” you need to catch the arrow and compare each change. He also said. In the 2021,2022,2023 testing (2021 and 2022 are on the ABF website supplemental replete) we are still seeking the same outcomes - with an 80# compound and 12 factors as the highest performer comparatively. So that’s velocity. One thing we can not measure is the REDUCTION in velocity at impact. There are too many variables I.e. rib hit only, between the ribs, edge of scapula - quartering away. Totally different speed reducing factors which lowers momentum speed component widely (we assume). Gotta test it! More to come on this. It’s super interesting. Trust me, Ed doesn’t have an ax to grind with 650 and 12 factors, it’s what has worked best until TODAY. For instance, the tapered shaft has actually been amended this year, by ABF, to include parallel shafts on a compound as tested and totally acceptable. So that means an 11 factor arrow. So ABF is evolving based on the results. If velocity shows, in some capacity, to be a new bone breaker - however that pops up, under whatever conditions, we’ll find it and if it repeats in enough data points - then ABF will have to accept that. As noted above and Ed says all the time to us when we ask questions. “I don’t know, we need to test it”. So it’s not a finished project. It is a living document. Which makes it quite fun. You say “hold my beer and watch this!!” and send the arrow.

[@rohlfing63]

In addition to everything Troy stated already, keep in mind that you're going to be focused on the velocity when the broadhead strikes the animal, and the bone, rather than the momentum when it leaves the bowstring. In theory your suggestion is correct, but just bear in mind that a faster/lighter arrow loses velocity more quickly than a slower/heavier arrow with the exact same momentum at launch. Lots of people are achieving speed by reducing mass - that tradeoff actually reduces momentum at the point of impact.

[@tylerchubb3876]

22:20 when Ashby states that he had to stop using compounds because they kept passing through the animal that right there implies/shows that he is showing that he doesn't want to prove himself/abf wrong on things! Ashby says that speed does not play into penetration but yet the compound producing much greater speed with the same arrow vs the trad bows is getting pass throughs! That infact proves all the testing wrong! If a 650gr arrow has a 100% bone breaking threshold out of a trad bow then the arrow weight would be very much lower to break bone with a compound! That is the biggest problem I personally have with all the ashby testing, he used trad bows and refused to use modern equipment i.e. compound bows because they out penetrated trad equipment proving his testing to be wrong when it comes to compound bows! By ashby stopping using compound bows because of getting pass throughs proves that his testing should be applied to trad equipment and not applied the same to compounds because it obviously shows that a compound requires much less weight to get pass through on the same animal as the trad equipment! Now everyone will throw the "flapper" thing out there but that isn't what we are necessarily talking about we are discussing arrow weight! Take a 450gr arrow with a fixed head with the same cutting ratio as how ashby said to do with a 650gr arrow/broadhead setup but but keep it at 650gr and then compare the 650 vs 450!! You'll not see this test done because the 450gr arrow would out preform the 650gr... very time the 450 vs 650 thing is done they put a "flapper" on the 450gr people are not arguing that a fixed head won't out penetrate an expandable people (like myself) are arguing that the 650gr is not needed with modern equipment.

[@OldDerelict]

More speed on a GIVEN ARROW will increase its penetration, but you can not reduce arrow weight and increase velocity to achieve the same amount of momentum and get an equal amount of penetration. At a given amount of momentum, reducing arrow weight and increasing the velocity reduces penetration when testing in real tissues.

[@tylerchubb3876]

​@OldDerelict yet Ashby threw out the compound rather than testing how light he could go an arrow. He proved his testing should not be equally applied to compounds. 650gr arrow was that he found was required to break bone 100% of the time with a recuve/longbow but what he did not do was test to see what the 100% bone breaking threshold would be for a compound, but yet the ABF & RanchFairy push the plan b stuff endlessly! When you plan on plan b happening then it is more likely to happen! Work hard on plan a and plan be will rarely happen!

[@HuntingNoobie]

What does Dr. Ed think about the EZV sight?

[@RanchFairy]

@@HuntingNoobie No idea

[@seanbyham7838]

Something that can kill penetration is the last floating flexible rib on a deer’s ribcage. Hit one of those and I bet it flexed hide like crazy as my arrow tried to exit. Killed the deer but was using a 2.25 inch Simmons head and it didn’t exit. I am stubborn and need to try biggest broadhead and the small single bevels and see for myself. Longbow hunter. I think the 650 grain rule with a single bevel grizzly/cutthroat is probably the ticket. Flexing bone, moving animal, lots of things can happen to kill penetration quickly. I originally went to the Simmons heads to better blood trail but this seems to be a bad decision. I am color blind so struggle with blood trail’s but to overcome that started using a string tracker and that seems to be super helpful so far. String trackers probably won’t work on fast compounds.

[@greekmaster1001]

Who else got an advertisement of the G5 broadheads mega meat with a guy driving a pick up truck and blood coming out of the tailgate while watching this video lol

[@brianrull6210]

Same arrow & single bevel broadhead shot from two different bows: -29.5” EA5 200 675gr @ 275 fps (175/19.5%) -29.5” EA5 200 675gr @ 251 fps (175/19.5%) Assumption: Both setups are equally tuned. Is the additional speed as much of an advantage as one would expect? I can’t get my head around the speed-impact resistance factor.

[@JSturdivant]

Assuming perfect arrow flight, and all else being the same, the higher speed should penatrate more having more total energy and momentum. Once the higher speed arrow begins to slow down in the animal it would at some point have as much momentum and speed as the slower speed arrow at impact.

[@michaelvstheworld3680]

Myth Busters already proved speed-impact resistance when they tried to find out how deep in a pool of water you had to be in order to be safe from bullets. They found a much slower revolutionary musket penetrated much deeper into the water than faster modern cartridges that pretty much exploded on impact. I wonder, though, if arrows are even traveling fast enough to matter.

[@d500mag2]

next time you are in a swimming pool place your flattened out hand ( fingers and thumb together to resemble an oar) on the surface of the water then push down on the water. Now, with hand the same way, hold it up high over your head and with all the velocity you can muster strike the water with the flat of your hand. that stinging, tingling, burning sensation is impact resistance. or. the equal and opposite reaction to the action you applied.

[@802realityvideos]

I get the 650, you never say at what speed. A compound bow with a 30lb draw weight shooting a 650 arrow will breach bones at 20-30 yards? I get the weight but speed must play a factor. Have to have one to get the other? Please respond.

[@samwindisch5596]

He's already done videos on this. Search for videos on the dik dik bow.

[@MichaelLakota-vc4tk]

Just imagine if a gust of wind were to blow through half way before the arrow arrives at the intended target. That my friend became another factor of a variable.

[@fasmola]

Only in velocity. The gust of wind would not decrease the arrows mass.

[@MichaelLakota-vc4tk]

@@fasmola a gust of wind could catch the fletching and cause a poor flight hit on target which would definitely change penetration efficiency

[@jacobcutter8962]

I have asked something similar on another video. What are the characteristics of a broadhead that has a 3:1 mechanical advantage. You keep referring to the tuffhead, but don’t actually list the characteristics.

[@OldDerelict]

A is a simple formula. It is the length-to-width ratio. A broadhead 3" long and 1" wide has a 3:1 ratio, as does a broadhead 3 3/8 inches long and 1 1/8 wide.

[@jacobcutter8962]

@@OldDerelict thanks!

[@dennybirchfield]

Can th doc please tell me if im gonna shoot a 204 shaft at 70 lbs what spine should i have

[@twysted_catalyst9096]

I'm not the doctor, but I know the answer is gonna depend on arrow length, how much weight you want up front, and potentially arrow brand. I shoot a 250 spine .204 with a 29 inch arrow and 225 grains up front at 68 lbs. Overall arrow weight is 525 grains. Sirius archery has a pretty darn good spine chart in my experience. Includes the ibo speed of your bow, length of the arrow, total weight you want up front, and poundage of your bow

[@MichaelLakota-vc4tk]

I want to answer the question that was just raised….The answer is that the best target will be the animal at the exact moment the arrow strikes or even misses its mark. Yardage,target density and the angle. My God there’s hundreds of variables with every shot and situation. I don’t actually think that this question could ever be answered properly or perfectly…Ever!?!?!?

[@glennl9630]

❤❤

[@bdubs1010]

It’s always a misconception in the gun world too that penetration in gel = penetration in flesh. It does not. The FBI defined the penetration limits in gel to “represent” what is required to reach the vitals on bipedal flesh targets (preferably pedophiles) no matter the angle that could include sternum, ribs, or possible a forearm. And as Ed mentioned the temporary and permanent wound channels. But gel is not 1:1 body penetration even for bullets. Ever see the slow-mo vids of bullets bouncing backward in gel at the end of travel? Seriously doubt that happens in real life.

[@802realityvideos]

650 at what speed!!!??? Never mention what speed the arrow is going.?

[@OldDerelict]

I tested the penetration-maximized 650-grain arrows down to 125 fps. They still breach heavy bone at the 100% frequency level at that velocity.

[@OldDerelict]

@@NODAK-x9x Correct, it will not breach heavy bone at the 100% frequency level. In the crossbow testing, a 500-grain bolt at just over 325 fps failed to accomplish heavy bone breaching with that frequency.

[@OldDerelict]

​@@NODAK-x9x All test shots are taken at a measured 20 yards. Yes, my testing data is in the database. Yes, there are set, written protocols for the testing. However, there are not enough test shots to state the heavy bone breaching rate with any degree of certainty. The crossbow testing (we procured five crossbows for testing) was abruptly interrupted when Australia made their use illegal where I was testing. Suddenly, owning a crossbow required a special permit, and one was required for EACH crossbow owned - and I wasn't even a resident there. Crossbows Verboten.

[@outdoorsman9384]

​@OldDerelict hay Dr Ed, I switched over too your list of lethality many moons ago with traditional and been having many pass throughs and bone breaching ability on my deer and turkey. But only one problem on the narrow heads I don't get the blood I'm looking for, some time ago I switched too at least 1.5 width two bladed and blood trails been back again. Any thoughts on the best of both worlds?

[@RanchFairy]

@@NODAK-x9x One thing to understand when talking with Ed. He’s always talking about a 12 factor arrow. That doesn’t change. So any change to the 12 factor arrow will reduce penetration. EXCEPT increased mass - that will increase penetration potential on bone and higher FOC will help move the arrow forward (in the first video). So for example - 11 factors - the factor you change is broadhead (which is easy to do and quite common) this head is lower mechanical advantage (which is most widely available) - but still single bevel. To be clear in this example - instead of 3” long and 1” wide (roughly what Ed tested) change to a 2” long but 1” wide more steep angle of attack design. The results will change. That exact adjustment has been tested with an 80# compound in 2023 and penetration did lower same arrow with a broadhead change. Report will come up when we get time to post it. We are a small team and the reports have a lot of detail.

[@mr.skeptical3071]

425 with a 125 tip and a fixed blade is all u need

[@RanchFairy]

@@mr.skeptical3071 Ok - just keep rolling. 243 is an elephant gun.

[@johngill4809]

425+125=550 sounds like your going in the right direction at least.

[@MichaelLakota-vc4tk]

Variables change facts from being accurate facts.

[@rohlfing63]

@@MichaelLakota-vc4tk I'd say that just a little differently: Variables can prevent theories from becoming facts.

[@MichaelLakota-vc4tk]

@@rohlfing63 well put 👍🏻

[@mackstrate6235]

Hmm. So in one breath we are saying speed don’t matter, in the next we can’t use compounds cause there’s too much momentum. What am I missing?

[@OldDerelict]

A brain?

[@mackstrate6235]

@@OldDerelict It was a genuine question. How bout a genuine answer?

[@mackstrate6235]

@@JTFII I’m saying his last video essentially claimed speed was nearly irrelevant in penetration but in the next that compounds were too effective to run his studies. Not even saying mass ain’t important here, but clearly speed is too.

[@coryr1948]

​@@mackstrate6235what he said was: his arrows became so efficient he needed to slow down so that the arrow stopped in the animal and didn't pass through so he could collect data. in hunting situation you still want to pass through. in a science situation you don't. now what's so difficult to understand?

[@mackstrate6235]

@@coryr1948 The fact that he says speed is not important in penetration is counterintuitive to that statement.

[@MagnumArrowArchery]

💪🏽🇺🇸🏹

[@seantnper881]

Excuse my ignorance, so should we be building 1000Gr arrows and shooting at least 50lbs out of a compound to almost guarantee pass through? Using a single bevel or three blade tuffhead.

[@michaelvstheworld3680]

"Shoot the heaviest arrow you can while still being happy with its trajectory," but remember 650 is the magic number when it comes to "heavy bone." Edit: I will add, shoot the most poundage you are capable of, comfortably.

[@OldDerelict]

@@michaelvstheworld3680 You, Sir, are correct.

[@arthurdirindinjr1792]

Based 100% on 40+ years of bow hunting deer and killing over 60 deer now I see absolutely no need whatsoever for total arrow wight heavier than I currently use of 457 grains total weight never had a single instance of insufficient arrow penitraition I see no significant advantages shooting a arrow 50-100 grains heavier but I do see loosing to much speed in exchange for no significant improvement in killing effectiveness and I use FBBHs I arrived at my current arrow weight purely as a result of arrow shaft and component selection and nothing else and have been using this arrow FBBH combination for the last 12 years and are absolutely satisfied with its performance on 16 deer and have absolute confidence in my arrows and FBBHs Put your broadhead of choice through both lungs nothing else need be worried about I dont have any experience with light arrows never used them I dont even know what the standard is that classifys an arrow a light weight just always used slightly overspined arrows since my first year of hunting using XX78's back in 1983 now I use carbons again slightly overspined I have seen what my current arrow FBBH combination will go through when I missed my target and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever my arrow FBBH combo is more than adequate to quickly humanly and ethically kill any deer species in north America

[@Chasintail11]

We’ll have you tried heavier or lighter? Kinda hard to have strong opinion if you haven’t seen it for yourself. Also what considered light, medium, and heavy is dependent on the bow, draw weight, and draw length. Also what’s acceptable for penetration to you is not the same for others. I personally want to get a pass through on 100% of the time but I don’t want a super heavy arrow so instead I went to 80lbs. I’m shooting 80lbs 30” draw sending 500 grain arrows 320 fps. My setup has evolved over the past 20 years. I don’t like complacency and you can’t figure out what the best setup is unless you try.

[@african7498]

@@Chasintail11 I swear by one thing without trying anything else? clever.

[@Chasintail11]

@@african7498 right? If I mess up a hunt I want it to be 100% user error, not because of my equipment. I’ll never understand the old archery way if thinking. Not wanting to improve is just crazy to me.

[@johngill4809]

Your small sampling isn’t enough to make it a scientific study, it’s anecdotal at best. Dr Ed never said a 425gr arrow won’t work what he says is his study found the heavy bone breaching threshold was 650gr, he even mentions that lighter setups can breach heavy bone but not with 100% certainty.

[@mackstrate6235]

Oof another one. “Well he did put another one into him.” Again, in one breath we knock Chris for shooting a buffalo more than once, and making a poor shot that hit the shoulder joint but the next praising an Ashby member for breaking the same joint but not passing through and requiring a follow up. What am I missing?

[@OldDerelict]

Rob's first arrow shattered the Cape buffalo's 5" thick ball joint, penetrating deep into the thorax. It put the buffalo down almost immediately. Rob's second arrow was to dispatch the buffalo rapidly. Rob didn't wound his buffalo and not recover it, as Chris Bee did his first buffalo. Rob didn't have to chase his buffalo over half the country, shooting it time after time before finally killing it, as Chris Bee did on his second attempt at killing a buffalo. Rob's buffalo went only about 20 yards before going down, which is when Rob fired his second arrow to rapidly dispatch the buffalo. The circumstances between what Chris Bee did and what Rob did are not even comparable. Rob's was a clean, rapid kill. What Chris did is a disgraceful display of trying to promote a product.

[@mackstrate6235]

@@OldDerelict Chris made a bad decision no doubt on that first arrow. But weight and Broadhead choice had nothing to do with the outcome. His second attempt was successful. Claim whatever you’d like to suit your agenda, your man put more than one arrow into an animal just like Chris did. Get off your high horse and support the hunting community as you should be.

[@RanchFairy]

@@mackstrate6235 Easy buddy. If you’re gonna get on that high horse, you have a choice. Scatter criticism equally and support the community, or stop commenting and support the community. Picking sides, as you have done, creates a strawman. Meaning You can choose to find fault in both and then give a solution. That’s fair and could help the discussion.

[@mackstrate6235]

@@RanchFairy One of my biggest complaints with this heavy arrow narrative has been YOUR mockery of those who choose to not follow. I can knock both sides here, and if you read my comment I’ve done so. Chris took a dumb shot. I’ve yet to see anyone on either side not acknowledge that. But to question his ethics as a hunter is of no benefit to the community, especially when using it to further your agenda. I’m not gonna shoot a 650 grain arrow at any NA game I currently have access to. You’ve never shown any real benefit to doing so. Breaking heavy bone is not important when it comes to killing a whitetail deer. Yet you talk as though the Ashby testing in Africa is universally important.

[@OldDerelict]

@@mackstrate6235 Chris Bee ignored the information on what arrow setups are consistently adequate for hunting buffalo. There's a reason lightweight arrows are banned in many countries for hunting buffalo-they don't work consistently. That is unethical.

[@802realityvideos]

I get it 650 grain arrow or bolt. But will a 450 grain bolt going 430fps have the same outcome. At some point speed and weight must come to a equal.

[@fasmola]

I don’t think so. Velocity is the ever decreasing variable. And the faster an arrow goes, , the greater the drag. Mass is never changes.

[@ryanburns3921]

​@fasmola correct. That's supported through the testing and math so far. Though Troy is starting to test some crossbows to actually see if there is any change at those speeds. The problem then will most likely be structural integrity of the broad head throughout the penetrative cycle. If 300 fps can tear up a thinner/lighter broadhead. Imagine what how bad it would be at 450+.

[@YoureSoVane]

Correct. For a given target medium and a given KE range, there's a given mass that creates the bone breaking threshold. It's not that you can't break bone below that threshold, but that you can't predict consistently.

[@kountzer0]

Ed said they had never seen a velocity that lowers the threshold to date including th foundation data. He did say it must exist, because rifles do it. Just no bow or crossbow to date. Then for scale, he said to go look up the KE figures for a standard 22LR bullet. I found about 120 to 160 ftlbs is reasonable for a 22LR. It's in one of the Fairies earlier interviews with Dr. Ed.

[@km6731]

you broke 5 inches of bone with a 1100 grain arrow (once). Don't talk so excited like this has been tested 1000 of times and is the norm. you are kinda doing what you told us not to do.

[@RanchFairy]

@@km6731 Wow man. Ed literally said he didn’t think it could be done (guess ya missed that). And I guarantee he will say “man we gotta test that again”. He doesn’t believe in a one off and that’s the results you should expect. He also said “you have to shoot a bunch of shots, compile the data, the see the trends”. ( missed that ) Cut the man some slack. 30 minutes of great content and you pluck this out. Wow. Chris bee fan by chance? Chris made a pin cushion, wounded a buff to death and then took his video down.

[@km6731]

@@RanchFairy no I couldn't pick Chris bee out in a lineup. Your channel , hunting public and lusk and Allie every once in a while are the only archery channels I watch. Was mostly giving you guys shit for how excited you got on one outcome.

[@RanchFairy]

@@km6731 You read your own leaflets and decided that’s what we said. I guarantee you the guy who killed 2 rhinos With a bow That is Dr ED by the way - he is not convinced it’s a 100% repeatable outcome every single time off of one situation. It is one outcome and it happened. So we gotta test it more!

[@bjcoveney5306]

Hummm

[@wrobo6122]

All you need is a 4mm arrow for penetration, good arrow flight out of a properly tuned bow, a sharp Broadhead and practice shooting to have good shot placement. Also 270 - 285fps. will get the job done. Its not rocket science!

[@coryr1948]

You're missing the point. The whole reason why they're doing all this is because they want to know what the most deadly arrow consists of. You may not care but some of us tinkerers and perfectionists obsess over this stuff. Let it be.

[@RanchFairy]

@@wrobo6122 In Plan A - 100%. Ed said that in an earlier video on FOC. However - when or if a mistake is made and plan B happens, The TESTING (5,000 documented shots) does not show your claim to be true for maximum lethality in the highest number of impact points that COULD occur if a mistake is made or the animal moves So yes - you’re good to go and this isn’t a fight.

[@rohlfing63]

​@@NODAK-x9x That's funny. The data is available, peer reviews are certainly welcomed. I'd love to see an actual compilation and analysis of this alternative data you speak of, please post a link to it. There are a boatload of us former speed freaks who are great hunters, yet we've encountered enough questionable outcomes that in searching for a better approach have shifted in the direction of what Dr Ed is advocating for. I'm not all the way to the 12 factor arrow, but cut on contact fixed heads and more FOC are definitely in the quiver for our archery opener next week. You do you, I wish you nothing but success.

[@coryr1948]

@@NODAK-x9x Everyone’s got their own opinions on hunting and equipment, as for the Ashby study, it's a solid reference for anyone interested in bowhunting, and data holds more weight than options. At least he has a study. Where is your study? A link to gun ballistics? Otherwise your opinion means jack shit to me. Oh and to note, I work on my own bow as much as possible and only take it to the shop when I need to. Otherwise I avoid shops like the plague. I don't trust anyone with my equipment. Never shot 3D archery... so what is it like? Golf?

[@coryr1948]

@@NODAK-x9x Millions... your flat out lying. If you really don't give a rat's ass you'd never have spoken at all on this video.

[@gregklena4962]

Firstish