Interested on what the numbers actually are? Or what they mean I guess.

 

Interested in what the numbers actually are? Or what they mean, I guess.

I'm sorry I didn't even think about that. The numbers are an lb force given in gram to cut a specific material for testing edge retention.

 

The variances are interesting. I shoot silverflames and i do think they hold a edge fairly well.
Like sdonx asks:
But what to the actual numbers mean? Like with silverflames, what does 91 and 163 represent?

 

Bess sharpness tester.

 

Good to see my tuffheads did well. That's encouraging.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

Son of a gun, his $50 each broadheads came out on top.

 

They’re not “his” broadheads. He’s stated a few times that he makes no money from GrizzlyStik’s “Ashby” broadheads, he only helped with the design back in the day. Even Alien Archery has “Ashby” named broadheads now.

 

The foundation released some edge retention test on a few broadheads. They gave the pre-shot and post-shot on a cape buffalo hunt done in July

I added the difference to the table to look at the edge retention difference. very surprised by the iron will.

(The numbers are an lb force given in gram to cut a specific material for testing edge retention) The test media is a certified test media. BESS

View attachment 7466225

Really liking the Evo tough head

 

This is done on the cool testers that John Lusk has, right?

And for the price of Bishop, I would’ve expected a lot better!

 

yes.

I have an older tester. from the same company. Mine uses a lead shot for the weight. I modified mine to tie to the computer. it allows me to look at a graph as I add the weight till it cuts.

This is a german Kinetic 150gr.

This is a grizzlystik silverflame 150gr.

 

When the Ashby Foundation conducted the test on its own BH's, what results could be expected to be published ?

 

The Ashby foundation doesn't have its own broadheads. Never has

 

Some good info for future use. Thanks..

 

The foundation released some edge retention test on a few broadheads. They gave the pre-shot and post-shot on a cape buffalo hunt done in July

I added the difference to the table to look at the edge retention difference. very surprised by the iron will.

(The numbers are an lb force given in gram to cut a specific material for testing edge retention) The test media is a certified test media. BESS

View attachment 7466225

It’s unfortunate the full report added information related to their personal opinions about the other manufacturers.

 

Yes, now if they had looked at it as I did and looked at the actual loss and not just the numbers, it showed the grizzlystiks heads did not retain the edge.

I didn't see a sample rate. I may have missed it in the paper.

The 775gr arrow shot from the 39lb bow was useless data. They have zero comparisons. With the 24 years of Ashby research, you would think they would know how to test and show data.

There is an issue with the bishop 315gr test also. How did the 1150gr arrow get out penetrated by all the 665gr arrows?

They also talked about the mechanical advantage but didn't list it.

 

Yup those are all good points.

 

I should add I do really appreciate all they do.

 

maybe it was 159 typo

 

Under 100 on a bess is pretty nuts.

 

I feel something is wrong I tested lots of broadheads on the bess system I ever goy was around 135. That head was sharp as hell.

Here is a test I did on the 200gr maasia

 

So the target was live and dead Cape buffalo?
Sorry if I missed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So the target was live and dead Cape buffalo?
Sorry if I missed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5d0443b188b6c900011e0ccc/t/612575ee7d2e1f7f4571affd/1629844974987/ABF+CASE+STUDY_Final.pdf

 

😿

 

Personally I'm interested in Mechanical Advantage lately. Animals are an imperfect test medium, due to no point is the same that we're testing the broadheads on. However, ballistic gel is also imperfect due to it's gel-qualities which can be quite grabby.

For example, what I've seen by watching broadheads go through gel is short, stout heads fair pretty well. TotA, Exodus, and Annihilator for example. These heads don't necessarily have the best MA, but they get around 6.5 up to 8 inch penetration. Then when heads such as the Tuffhead 3 Blade is tested (using John Lusk's results), this head underperforms at 5in penetration. It doesn't add up to the current MA science we have. This makes me think, is the science we have wrong or is it the test medium?

If it's the science, then we can find out where we went wrong. If it's the test medium, then we can find (or invent) a better test medium.

Another test that interests me is force-penetration tests. Brandon McDonald on his channel did a rough test of how much force it takes for a head to penetrate a piece of cow leather. In the video, even he admits that the test has many flaws but it was done just to give an idea. I just remember IW doing pretty well, mechs had a really rough time with the test, and Valkyrie penetrating like it was going through butter. Anyways, if we could create a force test like this, but with a better medium and scale of measurement, that would help give hunters an idea of how much energy is expended upon entry to an animal.

 

Personally I'm interested in Mechanical Advantage lately. Animals are an imperfect test medium, due to no point is the same that we're testing the broadheads on. However, ballistic gel is also imperfect due to it's gel-qualities which can be quite grabby.

For example, what I've seen by watching broadheads go through gel is short, stout heads fair pretty well. TotA, Exodus, and Annihilator for example. These heads don't necessarily have the best MA, but they get around 6.5 up to 8 inch penetration. Then when heads such as the Tuffhead 3 Blade is tested (using John Lusk's results), this head underperforms at 5in penetration. It doesn't add up to the current MA science we have. This makes me think, is the science we have wrong or is it the test medium?

If it's the science, then we can find out where we went wrong. If it's the test medium, then we can find (or invent) a better test medium.

Another test that interests me is force-penetration tests. Brandon McDonald on his channel did a rough test of how much force it takes for a head to penetrate a piece of cow leather. In the video, even he admits that the test has many flaws but it was done just to give an idea. I just remember IW doing pretty well, mechs had a really rough time with the test, and Valkyrie penetrating like it was going through butter. Anyways, if we could create a force test like this, but with a better medium and scale of measurement, that would help give hunters an idea of how much energy is expended upon entry to an animal.

I looked at adding a way to test how much force it takes for a broadhead To push through the material while being shot. I have most of what would be needed to do the test due to another test I’m doing. BUT, I’m not going to spend another $400 on what I need for the test. Even now I Have spent around $250 on the material to build a trolley system so I can shoot it. Hahaha. All for a test that maybe if lucky 50 people will see and most will tell me I’m wrong. Hahahaha. If you want to build a tester to test broadhead force. It’s not hard. Going to take around $700 to build it.

 

Gram force is a deprecated unit and should be abolished. Why one would want to *******ize the SI system is beyond me.

 

Gram force is a deprecated unit and should be abolished. Why one would want to *******ize the SI system is beyond me.

this is what lots of people use when looking at edge and edge retention When using the Bess system. Not sure why you think it should be abolished.

 

So two shots for each head for this data?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I think it said Multiples shots. How many is a multiple?

what was the edge test after sharpening the heads after each shot?

why did they not match the edge before testing so a comparison could have trully been done?

they talk about the MA of the heads but do not list.

they do not show any of the penetration depths for each shot. Showing only average hides lots of things. I always show all shots during testing. Eliminates questions.

what happen to the one 1150gr arrow with the Bishop head only get 12.5” penetration but the 655gr arrow with the 200gr Bishop get 20”

why did they not test the 1150plus arrows out of the 72lb bows? And the 655gr arrows in the 82lb bows. by not doing that they cannot compare the test with the 72lb vs the 82lb bows.

was the momentum listed at the bow or at target.

why would you not show KE. Even Ashby that stated KE nothing still listed it.

when testing edge retention to look at how well a broadhead will hold up should never be tested in an animal. It would be impossible to repeat the outcome. To even get close to having a good data to compare would take (just guessing) a sample rate of 50 or more.

lots of questions to look at. But it is still data. You just have to decide if the data shows to be accurate or not.