wildernessmaster
Lil-Rokslider
As I have been reading more and more about killing with arrows, I am brought to a anecdotal, physics and physiological conundrum...
It seems in the bow hunting world, the mecca of mortality, detente of death, the muther of all goals is to get arrow "shoot thru" (i.e, where the arrow goes fully through the animal and out the other side.
While on the one hand, I understand the increased ease of tracking due to the increase in blood leaving the body (potentially) from 2 holes rather than 1 (or 1 with a shaft partially plugging it), I do not see the logic (anecdotal from the gun world, realistically from physics and wound theory, nor reality wise from physiology and having spent quite a bit of ER time).
On the anecdotal side, the thing you most want to avoid in the gun world is a shoot thru. I have lost more game by shoot thrus - particularly smaller bodied animals. It often means your bullet has left the least trail of damage behind and your animal may survive (or go die somewhere way far away). Now I understand, bullets are hitting with much more momentum than arrows, but momentum is part of the killing equation. Imparting as much of it into the thing you want dead is a goal of any effective projectile weapon.
On the physics front, the shoot thrus are actually an indication that the terminal energy is not being left in the thing you want to kill. To kill something even with sharp "knives" (broadheads) an element of that is imparting full terminal energy into the body. Otherwise potential destruction (i.e., potential energy) is not dumped into the body.
Finally on the physiology front... particularly more so with "edged" based projectiles, you would want those remaining in the body to continue to cut and do damage as the body expires and moves. Even a dull, blunt bullet fragment left in a body continues to do damage as movement of the surrounding tissues drag it over new body parts. An arrow with a point and sharp blades on the end of a lever (shaft) partially sticking out of a body would basically be like turning a ninja loose inside the body as the animal runs off.
So why are shoot thrus (other than for blood) trails considered ideal for killing with arrows? It does not make sense to me. Especially when I consider heavy arrows, I would think I would want to see that big broadhead go to the right depth, cutting everything in its path going in, then bury into the tissue and remain to be "knifed" around with every movement cutting more.
Now I may not have the best blood trail (and not you can get such puny blood trails as well with shoot thrus), but I have: a) dumped all the arrows energy b) penetrated to a lethal depth into critical organs c) left the "knife" in to work more magic with each respiration and movement of the animal.
That just sounds better... why is it not?
It seems in the bow hunting world, the mecca of mortality, detente of death, the muther of all goals is to get arrow "shoot thru" (i.e, where the arrow goes fully through the animal and out the other side.
While on the one hand, I understand the increased ease of tracking due to the increase in blood leaving the body (potentially) from 2 holes rather than 1 (or 1 with a shaft partially plugging it), I do not see the logic (anecdotal from the gun world, realistically from physics and wound theory, nor reality wise from physiology and having spent quite a bit of ER time).
On the anecdotal side, the thing you most want to avoid in the gun world is a shoot thru. I have lost more game by shoot thrus - particularly smaller bodied animals. It often means your bullet has left the least trail of damage behind and your animal may survive (or go die somewhere way far away). Now I understand, bullets are hitting with much more momentum than arrows, but momentum is part of the killing equation. Imparting as much of it into the thing you want dead is a goal of any effective projectile weapon.
On the physics front, the shoot thrus are actually an indication that the terminal energy is not being left in the thing you want to kill. To kill something even with sharp "knives" (broadheads) an element of that is imparting full terminal energy into the body. Otherwise potential destruction (i.e., potential energy) is not dumped into the body.
Finally on the physiology front... particularly more so with "edged" based projectiles, you would want those remaining in the body to continue to cut and do damage as the body expires and moves. Even a dull, blunt bullet fragment left in a body continues to do damage as movement of the surrounding tissues drag it over new body parts. An arrow with a point and sharp blades on the end of a lever (shaft) partially sticking out of a body would basically be like turning a ninja loose inside the body as the animal runs off.
So why are shoot thrus (other than for blood) trails considered ideal for killing with arrows? It does not make sense to me. Especially when I consider heavy arrows, I would think I would want to see that big broadhead go to the right depth, cutting everything in its path going in, then bury into the tissue and remain to be "knifed" around with every movement cutting more.
Now I may not have the best blood trail (and not you can get such puny blood trails as well with shoot thrus), but I have: a) dumped all the arrows energy b) penetrated to a lethal depth into critical organs c) left the "knife" in to work more magic with each respiration and movement of the animal.
That just sounds better... why is it not?