Rangeball

Wow... What an eye opener...

I' ve just give most things a quick glance/read, but very very impressive collection of real world info on what we' re all trying to do while hunting. Momentum vs. KE explained in great detail.

Opened my eyes in a big way.

Oh, and Art, look at it as a truckload of ammo for your position. I think you and this guy would get along just fine...

http://www.tradgang.com/ashby/

Arthur P

I read the study several years ago. Glad somebody finally did the work to get the whole thing on-line so many more people can see it and judge for themselves. Hats off to the folks at Tradgang.com for doing it.

Before reading this, my opinions were formed by reading about the experiments Fred Bear did shooting a ballistic pendullum with all weights of arrows back in the 30' s and 40' s. Heavier arrows swung the penduluum further than light arrows, so they obviously hit harder than the light arrows.

PABowhntr

As soon as I saw that the link started with " trad" I did not even bother clicking on it as the results are probably going to be all pro " heavy arrows" , lots of momentum and cut on impact heads...

...so, was I right? was I right?

c903

So what are you saying; That the test and test results do not apply in any manner to compound bows or to any of today' s equipment?

I suppose you are going to try and convince some that today' s compound bows and gear override and change the laws of applicable phsyics.

Rack-attack

Nice article, Thanks Range

How come, with all that info and writing there is no mention of how much KE and Momentum it takes to actually bounce an arrow of a target. I suppose the energy required to do such is so great they could not explain it[:-]

DaveC

I started to read and made it through the third heading, whew that' s a lot of information.
Kinda gets me a little more interested in the muzzy Phantoms for this season.


I can get my titans to group sub 2" at 30 yards so I think the phantoms should be no problem.

Mahly13

I have said it before, I' ll say it again.
The SLOWER the arrow...the BETTER off you are with a cut on impact head (i.e. single blade...or even the steelforce style 4 blades)
This test showes that older fixed heads failed... a LOT (sound like something said about older mech heads).
I would suspect that if done with some of the better heads of TODAY (Rocky Ti, Slick Trick, etc) you would find MUCH more favorable results.
One thing not looked at much, is the force of friction as it relates to speed.

" As long as the very fastest arrows travel not much over 250 fps" well THATS over (we still cannot GUARANTEE kills).

While an informative and well thought out set of tests, I think with better broadhead designs, and higher speeds, you will likely get different results.
While they didn' t get to eliminate as many variables as I would have liked to see...the number of arrows shot helps the accuracy of the results.

Now...next time I shoot a 94# bow at 182 fps...I know to use a cut on impact head

BOWFANATIC

To a point! They may not change the laws of physics but I can guarantee the charts and graphs and kill ratios (scapula hit , rib hit , back bone hit) on Dr. Ashtons study would all appear alot different if it were done now. Thirteen years of innovation has changed a few things.
I' m not saying I dont agree with a single blade cut on contact head for slower setups.

I' m just saying the study charts would look alot different if done today.

Arthur P

Ask and ye shall recieve. Dr. Ashby is currently doing another study in Australia with modern tackle. He says it should be complete in three years.

A long term study on game is a little different than shooting a few arrows into a block of foam in the backyard, ya know.

c903

Now, that is testing!

I will be anxiously awaiting to see how the results compare with shooting foam, wood, steel barrels, and rubber tires.