New Ashby reports on broad heads. Iron Will included

[MightyWhitey]

All testing done with compounds. https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...ba0bb0/1629510604173/ABF+CASE+STUDY_Final.pdf

 

[Greenmachine_1]

I'll be honest. Whoever wrote that wouldn't get published in the simplest of engineering journals.

Scientific method, "we thought about some stuff and placed a situation that seems reasonable to the layperson."

Testing apparatus, "yeah we used a few bows and such.". "Someone donated a tool so we definitely had to use that."

Conclusions: "So we are awesome and decided certain conclusions before we started our testing with no established method of quantification. It's fine, no potential for bias here. We couldn't have possibly done this better. See we did this on white paper and didn't use comic sans "

All that said, interesting paper. Wish they had some better criteria to their testing to quantify their bias, which was pretty obvious IMHO. I'm really curious why the 200 grain heads had to run at a lower mass arrow versus the 300 grain heads. Curious if order of firing into a dead carcass had a significant effect on performance. Curious if there is a better system to compare the heads to eliminate variables.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[BigCountry49]

I'll be honest. Whoever wrote that wouldn't get published in the simplest of engineering journals.

Scientific method, "we thought about some stuff and placed a situation that seems reasonable to the layperson."

Testing apparatus, "yeah we used a few bows and such.". "Someone donated a tool so we definitely had to use that."

Conclusions: "So we are awesome and decided certain conclusions before we started our testing with no established method of quantification. It's fine, no potential for bias here. We couldn't have possibly done this better. See we did this on white paper and didn't use comic sans "

All that said, interesting paper. Wish they had some better criteria to their testing to quantify their bias, which was pretty obvious IMHO. I'm really curious why the 200 grain heads had to run at a lower mass arrow versus the 300 grain heads. Curious if order of firing into a dead carcass had a significant effect on performance. Curious if there is a better system to compare the heads to eliminate variables.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

This would get a C- on a high school science project lol. That being said, it is an interesting test. I would like to see a similar test conducted by John Lusk as he seems to understand the concept of uniform testing. Either way, I won’t be loading up a 600+ grain arrow to shoot elk with..

 

[wapitibob]

Uniform testing could be done with some Thompson slides, load cell, and an x/y chart recorder. End up with force/penetration curves just like draw force curves.

 

[Greenmachine_1]

This would get a C- on a high school science project lol. That being said, it is an interesting test. I would like to see a similar test conducted by John Lusk as he seems to understand the concept of uniform testing. Either way, I won’t be loading up a 600+ grain arrow to shoot elk with..

I wouldn't hold this to the high standard of high school science...

I mean as a first draft. They have a good start, but they need to eliminate bias or detail how their bias could affect the results.

Either way. I like my 540 grain arrow that uses a 100 grain broadhead and won't be switching anytime soon for what I hunt..

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Zac]

I think if you are hunting water buffalo there is alot of great information here. It seems as though that's the direction that the foundation wants to continue with.

 

[Zac]

This would get a C- on a high school science project lol. That being said, it is an interesting test. I would like to see a similar test conducted by John Lusk as he seems to understand the concept of uniform testing. Either way, I won’t be loading up a 600+ grain arrow to shoot elk with..

Cody Greenwood from Trad Lab is the guy they need.

 

[BigCountry49]

I wouldn't hold this to the high standard of high school science...

I mean as a first draft. They have a good start, but they need to eliminate bias or detail how their bias could affect the results.

Either way. I like my 540 grain arrow that uses a 100 grain broadhead and won't be switching anytime soon for what I hunt..

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

I went to public school. They believed in a passing grade if effort was apparent... At least they didn’t write the report in crayon.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

I agree that the study doesn't pass muster as a piece of serious scientific literature, but the results are interesting nonetheless.

Too many variables are changing from the 200 gr to 300-ish gr setups (different draw weights, total arrow weights, head types) to compare across the test groups, so I think the most you can conclude is that a broadhead that starts (and stays) sharper penetrates better. I don't think anyone would dispute that claim.

 

[MightyWhitey]

Tough crowd. I don’t think this was meant as a be all end all study and final say. I took it as, “we killed these buffalo with what we know works. We’re going to shoot some heads in to these dead buffalo from 3 different bows and record what happens to the head.”
Seems to me like they had a high poundage, very heavy arrow, very heavy head setup like what somebody who is actually hunting buffalo would use. An African setup.

A common poundage, a arrow weight near their heavy bone breaking threshold of 650, and a few new 200gr heads that align with some Ashby principles. A more North American setup.

A light poundage, short draw setup to prove that you can be lethal on large heavy boned animals if you follow their 12 principles. A woman’s or kids setup

They shot a few heads out of those setups and recorded how the heads performed and held up. I’ll take a test like this over shooting gel, carhoods, blocks, or a hydraulic press pushing heads in to hide and shoulders any day.
I would also like to know more details about how many animals were tested on, was the same rib/bone hit more than once etc.

I appreciate what these guys do. And I appreciate that they’re not paid by any of these companies and they’re not out to sell a specific product. I don’t know how you could shoot arrows in to animals and control all variables. If you guys know how I’m sure they’d be all ears. Rob is a super nice guy and easily accessible. It hurt my heart to see that Iron Will shit the bed. Especially since I just spent about $300 with them. Oh well, I know they’re better than what I was shooting before.

 

[Greenmachine_1]

I just wish they had given more information on how they completed their testing. What was the atmospheric conditions for testing? Did they have a person doing the shooting or was it on a shooting machine? Why did the 200 grain heads run a lighter arrow versus the 300 grain head? Assuming that was due to the different bows that were being used. How was the animal positioned to make the shots repeatable? Why did one Iron Will break, but the other didn't? How many shots did they take with each broadhead (multiple? 2? 10?)? How many animals did they take for testing?

Much of this information was implied in the comments section, but without the raw data there are questions about how they collected the data and what amount of confidence could be taken from their results. I'm sure the results are accurate, but I can't replicate the test from that paper. Also their purpose was to test performance of broadhead against a cape buffalo, but their conclusions were to equate the performance of the head to efficacy of it's theoretical performance on the animal based on their testing. Maybe I read it wrong, but that's how I took it and there wasn't a criteria for what their expected performance criteria was.

These are all things that I want to know so I can understand how they reached their conclusions and generated their results. Then we can talk about the data and the performance of X versus Y and how that might be comparable to Z situation.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[MightyWhitey]

Agreed. More information would have been nice.

 

[Beendare]

Oh
.

 

[TheViking]

Oh great…. All I can think is there will be a whole crop of new bowhunters that think they need a 700g arrow and massive FOC just to kill a white tail.

Then they shoot and miss low.
.

I just wish there was more background on these results.

My 500g-525g arrow, 30” draw, 70# bow blows through elk and deer rib cages like butter. If I hit the shoulder, I’m screwed (knuckle, not the scap). Even if I bump up to 600-650 grains, am I going to bust through that knuckle? Maybe…probably not tho.

My arrow FPS is in the mid-high 270s right now, I shoot fixed blades great and still have good trajectory.

What else can you ask for?

Shit happens and sometimes you hit that knuckle, but I’m not sacrificing everything I just mentioned to just be able to POTENTIALLY bust through a knuckle. I’d rather shoot a good mid-weight arrow like a sniper and have better odds and making a great shot.

Everything in moderation.

 

[ddd-shooter]

I just wish there was more background on these results.

My 500g-525g arrow, 30” draw, 70# bow blows through elk and deer rib cages like butter. If I hit the shoulder, I’m screwed (knuckle, not the scap). Even if I bump up to 600-650 grains, am I going to bust through that knuckle? Maybe…probably not tho.

My arrow FPS is in the mid-high 270s right now, I shoot fixed blades great and still have good trajectory.

What else can you ask for?

Shit happens and sometimes you hit that knuckle, but I’m not sacrificing everything I just mentioned to just be able to POTENTIALLY bust through a knuckle. I’d rather shoot a good mid-weight arrow like a sniper and have better odds and making a great shot.

Everything in moderation.

Agree completely. Also, penetrating game is not the ONLY factor to consider. That's just silliness to suggest otherwise.

I want to know why they've never compared an overall heavy arrow out of a compound vs a high foc arrow. Head to head, exact weight vs exact weight.
I'd bet there's not much difference with compounds.
He says arrows staying intact is the number one penetrating factor. I wonder how many people get a lighter shaft to put a bigger head on the end and end up losing overall arrow strength which costs them in the end.

 

[Beendare]

delete

 

[Greenmachine_1]

This ^ is the Million dollar question

Why no scientific test controlling for all of the variables?

.

Probably because it was "proven" in previous white papers.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Zac]

This ^ is the Million dollar question

Why no scientific test controlling for all of the variables?

.

This is because this is all an extension of their previous testing. They aren't returning to those tests, they are just assuming all of that old stuff and the 12 rules is valid. They believe they won the FOC argument 20 years ago.

 

[ddd-shooter]

It’s an easy link to put on their website if it’s been studied before.
Or if they’ve done it before, I’ve never seen it. It’s always a light, low foc arrow vs a heavy arrow with lots of foc. Never have I seen a heavy arrow with nominal or average foc vs an arrow with the exact same weight with higher foc…which seems like step one in the scientific method to me, but maybe someone has researched it and I haven’t seen it.

 

[Greenmachine_1]

I'm pretty sure that Bill from Iron Will has talked about that plenty of times.

*Edit* I have a link of Bill talking about arrow setups, but it's not embedding correctly. I know Bill was on Rokcast recently having a similar discussion.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk