Arrow Lethality - Shoot Thru Really Ideal??

[Sled]

dt

I don't think anyone thinks you are an idiot. This response I think shows definitively that you suffer from a common issue many engineers have: You are overthinking this! You are now comparing C4 explosives to archery!

haha. you are correct. my wife works with and is an engineer.

 

[Sled]

luke,
concentrate on shot placement with whatever you choose to use to take game.

you are focusing on scientific preparation and that is fine but we are simply hunters with a goal of cleanly harvesting game. when i release an arrow at a game animal i'm concerned with the angle it will enter and what structures it will contact. i know my setup has the capability to "pass through" but that is not on my list of concerns. my goal is to hit vitals and not bone so i opt for lungs (low). i cannot control if the BH hits ribs on the way in but i can control my decision to shoot and the gear i use. my goal is lack of perfusion for the animal i'm shooting at. i occasionally get lucky and disrupt greater vessels but a hemo/pnumo does the trick quickly enough. i don't try to disrupt the CNS with an arrow or a bullet.

good luck with your season and i hope no one ever steals your elk from you again.

 

[Beendare]

Yeah, 2 holes guy here too as its the mechanism that collapses the lungs fastest. Out of hundreds of animals killed with an arrow, I've never seen a 2 holes to the chest not put an animal right down quickly. ...not one.

I've seen many single hole shot animals shot and lost....or go a fairly long ways.

There are other important factors not even mentioned; one that is important to me is that my arrow goes through so fast the animal many times doesn't even know they were hit. Contrast that to some mech heads that get them moving like their tail is on fire. An arrow wagging around in an animal always makes them go further, IME.

I get the feeling, many guys think the goal is to bleed them out....I've seen animals bleed for miles...then lose them.

I don't want to insult the OP's comments/experience....but many of us here have seen a lot of animals die- in my case literally hundreds to an arrow....preaching to us is going to illicit some colorful responses.

_____

 

[Mighty Mouse]

3. [From Explosive Theory] (to contradict the not having hydrostatic shock)... Low energy explosive waves can create destruction as well as high energy.

Is an arrow with 100 ft-lb of kinetic energy (being generous and using round numbers, typical arrow KE is lower, especially at point of impact) capable of creating any sort of destructive wave? The brief research I did indicates that a projectile's ability to cause significant remote damage (i.e., damage beyond the immediate path cut by the projectile) begins at KE values around 300-500 ft-lb.

Low energy waves (akin to an arrow) actually can produce more damage. Look at the Oklahoma city bombing - it was ANFO - very low energy.

"Low" is relative. The OKC bomb might have been low energy compared to other explosives, but it was approximately 70 million times more energetic than an arrow (5,000 lb TNT equivalent ≈ 7 billion ft-lb energy). Those two seem far too different, qualitatively and quantitatively, to draw any meaningful comparisons.

The theory of hydrostatic killing is a very controversial one and unproven. I believe the evidence in time will more agree with Nathan Foster (terminalballistics.com) on neurogenic vs hydrostatic damage (which btw goes back to terminal energy being important).

I think you meant to link to ballisticstudies.com (terminalballistics.com appears to be a blog that was abandoned after one post). This lengthy article at ballisticstudies.com goes into great detail about the incapacitating effects of hydrostatic and hydraulic shock induced by bullets, but the energy/velocity values referred to are well above those of arrows. I remain convinced that an arrow lacks the energy to create damage beyond the immediate path it cuts through the animal, regardless of whether the arrow passes through or stays in the animal.

6. There is a myth of "deflating" the lungs by the arrow going through them - BS! Your arrow does not deflate them. The breathing, post arrow entry (or exit), with an opening to the outside world does due to the differences in pressures.

The arrow creates the hole and the hole allows differential pressure to deflate the lungs. That chain of causality is short enough for me to accept the statement that the arrow deflated the lungs. To argue otherwise seems purely pedantic...certainly not enough to call the claim a BS myth.

For the record, I'm an engineer by training and trade as well, so we may be in for a long discussion

 

[MattB]

Thanks but I am well aware of that. I am also well aware of the differences in energy between the two and mortality aspects.

From you initial question and your supporting commentary it sounds like you "think" you understand this, but it sounds like the collective experience from this board suggests otherwise.

A well placed shot that exits will cause ample damage to kill the animal very quickly while providing a path for more blood to exit for tracking and to potentially allow more air to enter the chest cavity - all the while not causing the animal the sort of stimulus that can cause them to get their adrenaline up and to run harder/farther which generally occurs when an arrow does not exit.

But let's play devil's advocate. How do you keep that heavy arrow you reference from fully penetrating? Do you shoot low poundage (and what if you do and accidentally hit heavy bone)? What if you get a partial passthrough so you do not get additional cutting plus it energizes the animal to run further? Or worse yet, you bury the arrow in the offside scapula so that you don't even get the second hole?

The only person I've ever met in the field who subscribed to your theory I met just as he was recovering an elk, and he had done just that (stuck the BH in the offside scapula, so he didn't even get the continued cutting effect he had carefully tailored his equipment to acheive). It worked in that he killed the elk, but the recovery likely would have been faster and the trail shorter if he had a passthrough.

With the ~100 animals I have killed with a bow, I would say the common range of incapacitation from a double lung shot has been 3-8 seconds. I would posit that playing out your strategy won't reduce that time, would like add to the distance covered in that time, and would reduce the likelihood of recovery on many marginal hits.

There is a school of thought to use some of that excess energy to increase cutting diameter while while achieving an exit to which I subscribe, but the notion that leaving the arrow inside the animal will aid in recovery is contrary to the experience of every accomplished bowhunter I know.

 

[Sled]

Yeah, 2 holes guy here too as its the mechanism that collapses the lungs fastest. Out of hundreds of animals killed with an arrow, I've never seen a 2 holes to the chest not put an animal right down quickly. ...not one.

_____

It is rare but does happen. I lost an archery deer one year that was a upslope shot hit middle of the deer lung and exited high the second lung. I realized the deer still had plenty of kick in it after about an hour of slow tracking. I then backed out and let it expire for 8 hours. I came back and the damn thing jumped up and took off on me. I came back the next morning with my dog and a cat had killed the deer. That's the last time I get a high lung shot on an animal.

 

[Billy Goat]

From you initial question and your supporting commentary it sounds like you "think" you understand this, but it sounds like the collective experience from this board suggests otherwise.

A well placed shot that exits will cause ample damage to kill the animal very quickly while providing a path for more blood to exit for tracking and to potentially allow more air to enter the chest cavity - all the while not causing the animal the sort of stimulus that can cause them to get their adrenaline up and to run harder/farther which generally occurs when an arrow does not exit.

But let's play devil's advocate. How do you keep that heavy arrow you reference from fully penetrating? Do you shoot low poundage (and what if you do and accidentally hit heavy bone)? What if you get a partial passthrough so you do not get additional cutting plus it energizes the animal to run further? Or worse yet, you bury the arrow in the offside scapula so that you don't even get the second hole?

The only person I've ever met in the field who subscribed to your theory I met just as he was recovering an elk, and he had done just that (stuck the BH in the offside scapula, so he didn't even get the continued cutting effect he had carefully tailored his equipment to acheive). It worked in that he killed the elk, but the recovery likely would have been faster and the trail shorter if he had a passthrough.

With the ~100 animals I have killed with a bow, I would say the common range of incapacitation from a double lung shot has been 3-8 seconds. I would posit that playing out your strategy won't reduce that time, would like add to the distance covered in that time, and would reduce the likelihood of recovery on many marginal hits.

There is a school of though to use some of that excess energy to increase cutting diameter while while achieving an exit to which I subscribe, but the notion that leaving the arrow inside the animal will aid in recovery is contrary to the experience of every accomplished bowhunter I know.

I'd bet a broadhead like this would reduce the penetration, cause a lot more damage if you have the energy and the blades actually stay together.



I wouldn't shoot one, just an example of how you could transfer energy from the arrow to the target.

 

[KyleR1985]

It is rare but does happen. I lost an archery deer one year that was a upslope shot hit middle of the deer lung and exited high the second lung. I realized the deer still had plenty of kick in it after about an hour of slow tracking. I then backed out and let it expire for 8 hours. I came back and the damn thing jumped up and took off on me. I came back the next morning with my dog and a cat had killed the deer. That's the last time I get a high lung shot on an animal.

How far under the spine did your arrow pass?

 

[MattB]

It is rare but does happen. I lost an archery deer one year that was a upslope shot hit middle of the deer lung and exited high the second lung. I realized the deer still had plenty of kick in it after about an hour of slow tracking. I then backed out and let it expire for 8 hours. I came back and the damn thing jumped up and took off on me. I came back the next morning with my dog and a cat had killed the deer. That's the last time I get a high lung shot on an animal.

Did you autopsy it to confirm a lung hit? I had a friend hit one similar to that (uphill shot just about the midline of the body). The property owner killed it the next year. It appeared my friend's arrow actually travelled over the top of the spine. I was very surprised by that given where I saw the arrow hit.

 

[Sled]

Did you autopsy it to confirm a lung hit? I had a friend hit one similar to that (uphill shot just about the midline of the body). The property owner killed it the next year. It appeared my friend's arrow actually travelled over the top of the spine. I was very surprised by that given where I saw the arrow hit.

I did not do a necropsy as the dear was mostly consumed. But I have seen enough sucking chest wounds to recognise it. It is possible the second lung may not have been hit. The arrow could have gone above. But regardless one long was definitely hit and the opposite side of the deer also had a hole in it.

 

[sndmn11]

I will absolutely buy into the concept that a broad head on the end of an arrow that that is still in the vitals and moving around due to body movement will cause significantly more damage than a pass through. Think of it like multiple pass throughs.

I also think that many are ignoring the idea because they have been successful with a properly placed arrow in getting pass throughs and lethal results.

If I sent an arrow into an animal off target, I would want it still in the animal because that gives X opportunities to cut the right things, whereas a bad pass through only cuts the one time.

 

[Mountain_Life]

There is a lot of valuable information on here and most of the knowledgeable posts support each other. Even if an animal is mortally wounded, it still needs to be recovered. 2 holes are better than 1 for allowing blood to drain onto the ground, especially if hunting from an elevated position.
And OP, throwing your credentials around and assuming that you have more experience than "most" others is only going to cause the fine and knowledgeable folks on this site to become offensive. There's a lot of well trained and experienced folks on here.

 

[MattB]

I will absolutely buy into the concept that a broad head on the end of an arrow that that is still in the vitals and moving around due to body movement will cause significantly more damage than a pass through. Think of it like multiple pass throughs.

I also think that many are ignoring the idea because they have been successful with a properly placed arrow in getting pass throughs and lethal results.

If I sent an arrow into an animal off target, I would want it still in the animal because that gives X opportunities to cut the right things, whereas a bad pass through only cuts the one time.

So how do you put together a set-up to reliably achieve the result of the arrow not passing through and keeping the BH in the vitals? Conversely and considering the requirements to make the former happen, how do you balance how your set-up will perform if bone is hit on the onside?

The impracticality of the strategy is probably why many are ignoring it. Not to mention it is a solution to a problem that - from a practical perspective - only exists on the internet because the status quo (passthroughs) leaves little room for improvement.

 

[sndmn11]

So how do you put together a set-up to reliably achieve the result of the arrow not passing through and keeping the BH in the vitals? Conversely and considering the requirements to make the former happen, how do you balance how your set-up will perform if bone is hit on the onside?

The impracticality of the strategy is probably why many are ignoring it. Not to mention it is a solution to a problem that - from a practical perspective - only exists on the internet because the status quo (passthroughs) leaves little room for improvement.

Where did I say that was the goal?

 

[wapitibob]

I will absolutely buy into the concept that a broad head on the end of an arrow that that is still in the vitals and moving around due to body movement will cause significantly more damage than a pass through. Think of it like multiple pass throughs.

I also think that many are ignoring the idea because they have been successful with a properly placed arrow in getting pass throughs and lethal results.

If I sent an arrow into an animal off target, I would want it still in the animal because that gives X opportunities to cut the right things, whereas a bad pass through only cuts the one time.

I've seen what happens when bulls run off with a broadhead in the middle of the lungs; they die in less than 100 yards and the biggest piece of lung is about the size of a golf ball. If my arrow passes thru, fine, but I don't spend time working on a setup to achieve that specific result.

 

[MattB]

Where did I say that was the goal?

You didn't, the OP proposed it and you are defending the notion.

So how do you do it?

 

[wapitibob]

So how do you do it?

I know an early 80's Golden Eagle, some real heavy game getters, and a 1-1/2" 4 blade rocky mt broadhead will only go about 1/2 way on a 7x7 Bull. LOL

 

[Sled]

You didn't, the OP proposed it and you are defending the notion.

So how do you do it?

You shoot a stick bow.

 

[Laramie]

I have harvested over 100 big game animals with a bow. I have also guided in 4 western states for big game. I would consider myself experienced and qualified to offer an opinion. The majority on here understand and I'm actually very surprised some are going along with the OP's idea. A complete pass through should absolutely be the goal every time. We owe this to the game we pursue. If we are intentionally using equipment that is intended to not penetrate completely, we are taking a risk of hitting the animal with less power than needed to effectively kill it. Yes, shots where the arrow stays in the animal will absolutely kill it if enough penetration happens to take out the vital organs. However, if you are using an under powered setup and hit a rib squarely, you take a chance of not getting to the opposite lung. An animal with one good lung, especially an elk, can go a very long ways. There are also variables on shot distance, angle and animal reaction, that can all impact penetration. Every archery hunter should use a setup that has enough power to overcome some of these variables. By doing so, you will often get complete pass through shots - which result in very fast deaths 100% of the time with well placed shots.

 

[sndmn11]

You didn't, the OP proposed it and you are defending the notion.

So how do you do it?

What I wrote is mine, if I had wanted to write more I would have.. Read it again as a sole piece without adding what isn't written.