Real world testing the way it should be. I know I can't afford to do tests like these. So I'm glad DR. Ashby has done them for me/us. And I was partially right about the K.E. not being the final factor in taking game.
Good reading but you better go to the latrine first it'll take awhile.
Great study. In the last 15 yrs of bowhunting, I've shot everything from flyweight mechanicals off screaming fast compounds to stout fixed blades from "significantly slower" selfbows. The study's conclusions are very interesting and concur with everything I've noticed.
Dr. Ashby has allowed bowhunters to make educated broadhead choices by reviewing the information contained in the Natal Study. Thanks for posting. The Ashby study does not seem to get the popular attention and respect it should among bowhunters.
my website is best displayed at 1024x768, type size "medium".
On the other hand my broadheads have already been tested in real animal tissue. I truly appreciate all the work that 5Shot is doing for and sharing with us but I'm not a big friend of this kind of testing for several reasons.
duggaboy, thanks for posting the link I found it very intresting, and considering the equipment of the day and from what I know of broadhead preformance now I would say the results are pretty much on track. Many of the heads listed are not even in production now. I wonder how things would work out if this exact same kind of testing was done with todays modern equipment? Todays bows generate a lot more energy and todays heads are much tougher than those we used just a few years ago. I will say this, while I am a fan of multiple blade heads for deer size game, even elk, if I were to go to Africa or hunt Moose, I know I would be shooting a high quality tough 2 blade head, with a heavier arrow. As for you sending heads for testing, I respect your opinions and actually agree with you on many points. I have always said my tests don't tell you what the head will do on game, but I do feel they seperate the junk from the mediocore to the best. I have checked your heads out, and from what I have read and seen they look very impressive. I am sure they would do well in the testing, but I also suspect that they cost would be high, of course I know exactly what you made the heads for, and you get what you pay for. Thanks again for all the information, it was some great reading and eye opening to say the least.
good to hear you statement.
Don't know if you got a similar saying in English but in German :"I'm sitting between two chairs". I guess you know what I mean.
On the one side I totally agree with you about the performance of todays bows and broadheads and a well-made multiblader is not the wrong choice for the game you've mentioned and again, I highly appreciate that there's somebody who is testing todays broadheads under identical conditions with a senseful rating.
I'm absolutely sure that your published tests have already avoided dozens of woundlosses.
On the other side, I'm still so stubborn to say that there's nothing like real world testing (on dead animals or parts of course) and that my broadheads are ONLY made and optimized for this purpose.
Btw, I don't think there's everything fine in Ashby's testing.
I remember a test he was shooting at a Zebra's scapular with his modified Grizzly broadhead from his longbow and with a multibladed broadhead and a carbonarrow from a compound. In this special case the Grizzly outpenetrated the multiblader of course but both arrows had an identical momentum. So, if it would be real scientific, Ashby should have switch the broadheads. Strictly following his "Tissue penetration index" the carbonarrow would had a better penetration now than the wooden shaft because of the lower shaft drag factor.
When I was reading his articles the first time I was in Africa and my professional guide showed me the articles and said that traditional bowhunters has been banned out of many hunting areas because of causing so much woundlosses and now they try to get their foot in the door again because of these articles.
To put it in a nutshell, I find Asby's studys very conclusive and closer to real bowhunting than anything else what I've found about testing but for me it's obviously that there's a intention to put the light on the traditional bowhunters and to push the compound-bowhunters into the shade. Maybe I'm wrong but looks like this for me somehow.
Those are some awesome looking heads.Man you need to get an english translation my german is a little rusty.I agree with 5shot on deer sized game a 3 or 4 blade head or mechanical and a moderate weight arrow is fine.I too would use a heavier arrow and 2 blade head on african game.Maybe tink can hook us up with a little live broadhead test in the dark land.How much do your heads sell for in us dollars DB?
That is good news. With another test and with the testing methodology updated to correct any shortcoming (what researcher hasn't wanted to improve his work?) from the first reports, this ought to give us some solid information and lay to rest some percieved notions that we have all wondered about.
Most of this research was done in 1986. The bow I shoot is pretty average with an IBO 326. This being said I don't think most of this pertains to me. The technology out now is way different. Cool read though even though I probably will never hunt with a recurve.
I took Dr Ashby's advice when I went to Australia 2 years ago. 900 Grain arrow with the Ashby head out of my 82# Hoyt. 4 dead Buff and a pass through on everyone. My partner did the same thing. Very impressive on thick skinned, dangerous game.
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
A forum community dedicated to bow and crossbow owners and archery enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, performance, troubleshooting, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!