Arrow Lethality - Shoot Thru Really Ideal??

wildernessmaster

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
297
Location
Pittsboro NC
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?
 

KyleR1985

WKR
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
382
Arrows don't kill by transfer of energy. They kill by two mechanisms - hemorrhage and pneumothorax. A razor sharp broadhead cleanly cuts veins and arteries, and the lungs/heart/liver/etc., causing massive hemorrhaging that the body isn't aware is occurring because the cuts are so clean. The sudden drop in blood pressure prevents blood flow to the brain. Pneumothorax occurs when the lungs can't inflate against a vacuum in the chest cavity. One hole is good for this. Two makes it very difficult for the lungs to inflate.

An arrow is nothing like a bullet. They aren't comparable. You want an broadhead to get completely through an animal, making contact with as many blood carrying pieces of said animal, as razor sharp as possible, making as many holes as possible(in this case, 2). Simple.
 

wapitibob

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
5,366
Location
Bend Oregon
I don't worry about a pass thru and never have. Most of my arrows were stopped by the offside scapula; I'd prefer those broadheads stopped in the center of the lungs.
 

Greenmachine_1

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jul 13, 2019
Messages
166
Wow there is a lot to unpack there. Not sure I have enough time to get through it all without a lot of back and forth discussion.

The main difference in your question relates to the most efficient method of downing your game with the method of take. Firearms generate significantly more energy than archery. The projectile is designed to work differently upon contact with the animal.

Energy:

Firearms are typically generating well over 1000 lb-ft of energy at the animal. All this energy will ideally be transferred to the animal causing shock and trama which is what is most efficient in killing an animal.

Archery can't generate more than 100 lb-ft of energy. So on a large game animal, there isn't enough energy to cause enough shock and trama to effectively kill an animal (small game is a different story and a blunt broadhead has its value in efficient hunting)

Projectile:
Firearms use a relatively smaller faster moving projectile that is blunt and designed to mushroom, fragment, etc. Upon entering the body cavity.

Archery broadheads for big game are moving slower with heavier larger projectiles. They use sharp cutting edges designed to increase blood loss in the animal.

All of that is to say that you will want two holes whenever possible with archery equipment. Cutting large arteries in the chest cavity will quickly drain the blood from the animal and create a quicker kill.

Probably didn't provide enough detail for the topic, but I hope it is a good start.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 

brsnow

WKR
Joined
Apr 28, 2019
Messages
1,847
Sharp 2-blade pass through and many times they don’t even move really.
 
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Messages
1,936
Location
Eagle River, AK
I understand a large diameter cutting broadhead halfway through may cut more blood vessels than a tiny broadhead all the way through, however, there is another anecdotal reason I personally always prefer a "complete passthrough" (by that I mean the entire arrow zips through, not just the broadhead making 2 holes)

In my experience many of the animals, especially elk, that I have been able to get a complete pass through on the first shot have no idea what just happened, and stand around for a second shot, or just tip over right there!

Everytime (other than a spinal shot) that the arrow is sticking out part way the animal takes off running like crazy! I much rather have an animal die in sight, and/or get a second arrow in if I can! For me a complete pass through on the first shot is always the goal.
 

cusecat04

FNG
Joined
Mar 28, 2016
Messages
81
Location
Syracuse, NY
plan for the worst, hope for the best.
I always plan for a pass through, means I didn't hit something stout enough to keep me from destroying vitals (double lung). This mindset also makes me hold for a good shot angle.
If you plan to only penetrate mid body cavity, some instances will see you not having the energy/terminal performance to account for a bad shot, animal movement, un-controllable things that happen in the heat of the moment.
Plus I can usually reuse a pass through arrow, I'm cheap in that way...
 

bwlacy

WKR
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
424
Location
West Michigan
I also have no tracking or much shorter trails when I get a clean, full pass thru. When the arrow stays in they run like crazy. I also think when you hit them with a large mechanical they run more than a fixed head that zips right thru, but that is just a theory from the few deer I've been around shot with mechanical heads. I haven't ever shot any of those heads myself.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
957
Location
West-central MN
Dr. Ed Ashby says this in part 5 of the 2005 Arrow Lethality Update found here (page 7):

What good does it do to have the arrow sticking in the dirt after passing through an animal? Isn’t it better to have a larger wound channel with penetration stopping at the off-side of the animal?
Medical studies from human arrow wounds confirm that hemorrhaging as a result of a broadhead-tipped arrow wound occurs significantly more quickly when the arrow/shaft does not remain in the wound; applying direct pressure upon the tissues. The hemorrhage differential is so great that first-responders are advised to never remove the shaft from a wound until adequate facilities are available to deal with the increased hemorrhaging which results1 . Additionally, it has been suggested that, in a moving animal, the tissues exert additional lateral pressure upon the shaft, further slowing hemorrhaging2 . Based on those findings, it would appear that a complete pass-through is the desired shot outcome on game.

He cites the following sources for this information:
1 Hain JR, 1989 “Fatal Arrow Wounds”, Journal of Forensic Science
2 Gregory NG, 2005 “Bowhunting Deer”, Animal Welfare, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, The Biotechnical and Biological Sciences Research Council and The Royal Veterinary College
 
Joined
Aug 7, 2017
Messages
349
Location
Colorado
I also have no tracking or much shorter trails when I get a clean, full pass thru. When the arrow stays in they run like crazy. I also think when you hit them with a large mechanical they run more than a fixed head that zips right thru, but that is just a theory from the few deer I've been around shot with mechanical heads. I haven't ever shot any of those heads myself.

From 35 years of archery hunting experience I agree. If I average out all of the 60+ kills I can remember and order the tracking job of "good hits" from shortest to longest: pass through fixed, pass through mechanical, entry only mechanical, entry only fixed. (all fairly level shots on the ground - no tree stands or severe up and down angles).

Personally, quit using mechanicals on elk after a brutal tracking job following a entry-only high lung hit in the 90s'. That being said, the bow and rig I use now, and my knowledge of archery dynamics in total, is significantly improved from that old 60# Oneida and in the right circumstance would consider one now - there has been one in the quiver for couple of years along with the fixed blades but has not been pulled for duty yet.

Ditto to above posts - a shaft whipping on the outside of an entry-only shot, even if a great shot, seems to put them into hyperdrive and a long track usually resulted.
 

bwlacy

WKR
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
424
Location
West Michigan
In my mind the only way the arrow staying in could be good is on a bad hit. Then maybe it could do enough damage to put the animal down.

Been bow hunting since 1982 and on whitetails I prefer a clean pass thru. Since I started getting those I've watched a lot of my deer go down. Double lung, complete pass thru, a lot of times they take a couple of bounds then stop and look around, then tip over.

Haven't killed an elk yet. So I can't comment on them.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2015
Messages
374
Get the pass the pass through, good points above. You can also google “tension pneumothorax” too lol. Plus if you get only half way through you may not puncture the pleura around the off side lung and only get one pneumo. But bleeding out is the main thing by far, not the pneumos, though they definitely contribute to some degree.

Only good take away from not using all the potential energy of the arrow would be to shoot a bigger broadhead if it will still give you a pass through. Shoot the wide IW instead of the traditional ones if you are a compound guy.

Also, most broadheads will be pretty dang dull half way through the animal, I doubt they would cut more that way than if it kept zipping through the other side. Idk. My 2 cents.
 

KyleR1985

WKR
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
382
Get the pass the pass through, good points above. You can also google “tension pneumothorax” too lol. Plus if you get only half way through you may not puncture the pleura around the off side lung and only get one pneumo. But bleeding out is the main thing by far, not the pneumos, though they definitely contribute to some degree.

Only good take away from not using all the potential energy of the arrow would be to shoot a bigger broadhead if it will still give you a pass through. Shoot the wide IW instead of the traditional ones if you are a compound guy.

Also, most broadheads will be pretty dang dull half way through the animal, I doubt they would cut more that way than if it kept zipping through the other side. Idk. My 2 cents.

I agree most broadheads would. But I disagree with the implication that that’s acceptable. I have a couple heads that have passed through deer or elk and still been shaving sharp. You pay more, with money and time, but they exist. And it makes a difference worth that time and money in my opinion.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2015
Messages
374
I agree most broadheads would. But I disagree with the implication that that’s acceptable. I have a couple heads that have passed through deer or elk and still been shaving sharp. You pay more, with money and time, but they exist. And it makes a difference worth that time and money in my opinion.
With what being acceptable? the dull broadheads half way through?
 

KyleR1985

WKR
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
382
With what being acceptable? the dull broadheads half way through?

thats right. Not singling you out, or saying you believe that. Just that it doesn’t have to happen. There are heads readily available that will pass through a deer or elk rib cage, and still be shaving sharp on the other side.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2015
Messages
374
thats right. Not singling you out, or saying you believe that. Just that it doesn’t have to happen. There are heads readily available that will pass through a deer or elk rib cage, and still be shaving sharp on the other side.
Oh gotcha lol. I was a little confused at first. Definitely are, and some at a great price point. Some people just don’t believe in that though. I work with a doctor who orders 50 Chinese rage nock offs, spins tests them all, and then hunts with the true ones knowing they are a 1/done head. And gets them for a couple bucks a piece. To each their own.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
2,233
Location
Missouri
Most of these points have already been made, but below is an excerpt from the book Can't Lose Bowhunting by Jeremy Johnson that's relevant to the OP's question.

I'm firmly in the "two holes are better than one" camp because I want full penetration through the vitals and a good blood trail. Arrows don't have enough energy to create hydrostatic shock and induce secondary tissue damage around the wound channel like bullets do. I see no upside to achieving maximum energy transfer from the arrow to the animal (i.e., having the arrow stop inside the animal), but I see plenty of downside, namely, possible insufficient penetration to pierce the vital organs (especially if bone is encountered on the way in).
IMG_20200707_230311492.jpg
IMG_20200707_230402672.jpg
IMG_20200707_230435356.jpg
 
Top