And that post was too long...maybe I dont have the patients I once had. ...Bow hunting isn't gun hunting.
And that post was too long...maybe I dont have the patients I once had. ...Bow hunting isn't gun hunting.
Spoken like a retired doctor.And that post was too long...maybe I dont have the patients I once had. ...
Bow hunting isn't gun hunting.
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.
Not picking on you bud so please don't take it that way but this is the question that is causing people to say this isnt gun hunting. There isnt enough energy to create hydrostatic shock in a game sized animal any piece of archery.
As covered before the is zero desire to "leave energy" in the animal with archery. You want all of your "energy" to remain with your arrow to facilitate deeper penetration with the goal of a complete pass through. The only reason to figure out what energy your producing is to aide in your selection of broadhead. With Cut On Contact heads there is no need to even think about it as the LBS needed to push a COC head like and iron will through is less than 20 LBS. Mechs need s higher LBS due to the opening mechinisim on the head. Why you want a pass through with a sharp head has been well covered.
I don't and will not pretend to understand all of the physics and physiology associated with killing an animal with archery tackle. But the points made about full pass-thru producing better blood trails and the evidence left behind on the recovered arrow are often vital to recovery. And without that aspect, the kill doesn't really mean anything. Assuming appropriate shot placement (I like lungs for target size and margin for error), I'll personally take a pass-thru every time I can get it.
Ok... Seems like a lot of responses think I am an idiot...
For the record, I am an engineer by education and advocation, as well as have spent over 20 years doing emergency medicine as a special forces medic. I have probably seen more "cuts" and "gun trauma" than most of you... (but maybe not Ashby ).
So I understand:
1) guns/arrows two different things with two different modalities. I apologize if my original post mislead some of you to think I thought they were the same. They are not, but BOTH modalities of killing involve the same underlying principles (energy, wound channel, damage to critical components...). Yes destroying Vital organs.
2) the differences in knives and bats - which is the difference between arrows and bullets. Again at the end of the day they both rely on the same fundamentals to kill. Yes destroying Vital organs.
Now to some of the assertions:
1. While energy dumping is not the primary means of an arrow killing, it is does still play a role. All trauma requires some energy. That "razor" (broadhead) wont' cut without it. Any energy leaving the animal (shoot thru) is energy not killing the animal. No. Energy of a bow is used to push the broadhead through vitals. That is all
2. The body is not a contiguous web of critical organs and critical blood vessels. In fact, I can not tell you how many time I have seen both knives and bullets have enter and exit bodies and not touch anything critical. So the theory of a shoot thru cuts more stuff - is only somewhat valid. It may, it may not. Most of the critical blood vessels you would want to cut (to kill) are in and around the heart. How many wounds to both lungs or heart have you seen recover without treatment? Vitals are vitals. No one is proposing to shoulder shoot a deer and hope the meager energy of 100 LBS puts it down. Vital shots are the only way to kill with arrows.
3. [From Explosive Theory] (to contradict the not having hydrostatic shock)... Low energy explosive waves can create destruction as well as high energy. In fact, high energy (akin to a bullet) tend to cut. We use to use C4 charges to literally slice metal like a knife. Low energy waves (akin to an arrow) actually can produce more damage. Look at the Oklahoma city bombing - it was ANFO - very low energy. So I totally disagree with Jeremy Johnson on that one, as do a lot of wound experts. 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). Doesn’t apply to arrows. The diffrenece between anfo and c4 while significant is still a moot point. Both are still producing massive amounts of energy. No arrow even comes close to anfo
4. The "killing vitals" on almost all animals are: 1) blood, 2) heart 3) brain/spinal tissue... everything else is a secondary attack on those. So deflating the lungs attacks the heart and blood (no O2, heart starves), or hitting a pancreas or liver is a blood attack. The goal in bow hunting is to create a cut that creates massive bleeding that causes a blood pressure drop and blood loss. Blood loss into the lungs is the same as blood that is lost outside the body. I don’t know anyone that aims for a CNS hit with a bow.
5. In a typical "good" shot, the core vital you want to hit is the heart and the blood vessels around the heart. Given a "big" broadhead maybe 2" wide you will be hoping to whack the heart and 1 major branch off the vessels leading in - that's about the best. There are tons of blood vessels in the lungs still that is how the blood gets oxygen.
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. BUT.... remember it doesn't take much to cover a chest hole and create a seal that can stop or significantly slow that. Drops of blood (from that wound opening you want to bleed so you can track) act as a great barrier to pressure dropping - and as soon as they hit air they start getting sticky (from coagulation). That said, this MAY BE the only true value in shoot thru - that you get two holes and both lungs deflating - but you can still accomplish that with a non shoot thru. Yes but a pass though will cut more then a non pass through. 2 lungs damaged is better then 1. If your calculating just enough energy to hit both lungs and stick of the opposite side of lung 2 what happens when you hit ribs and loose energy on the way to lung 1? Your chances of punching both lungs is diminished. One lung damaged isn’t enough as you said above. Serious question what happens when both lungs fill with fluid? If you a big enough stud to shoot the heart everytime a pass through isn’t needed. Im not that good of a shot and at 50 yards I don’t want to have to hope I can hit the heart exactly.
Look folks, in starting this thread I wanted to start a discussion. I understand (fully) the general beliefs and theories AROUND shoot thru arrow killing. That said, I started this because it does not fully jive from a "fact" scenario (energy, physiology and terminal ballistics).
Not wanting any wars, but I am calling somewhat BS on the full "beliefs" that have lead to shoot thru. That said, anecdotally I have to accept there is some basis for it working because it seems like shoot thrus produce results.
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.
I will clarify that my previous post was only with respect to archery hunting. With a rifle, I am more willing to push the envelope on shot placement and do not have a preference on whether the bullet passes through or remains in the body cavity (assuming good shot placement). I've had deer absolutely devastated by bullets that did not pass through, instead unleashing all sorts of hell in the form of bullet and bone fragments inside the chest of the animal. In a way, those experiences make me more open to the ideas expressed in your original post, but for reasons stated in my previous response, I'll still take the pass-thru when talking arrows. I've also had bullets pass through both lungs and watched the animals drop and expire within dozens of yards of their original position. So my experiences with a rifle lead me to not care one or the other where the bullet ultimately terminates, as long as I get it into the vitals. My experiences with a bow and arrow are more limited, in that I have never not had a full pass-thru. That is by design and is my personal preference; I have passed many shots that others may have taken because I didn't like the angle of animal. Not that I'm right and someone else is wrong, that's just my preference. I have lost two animals to high lung and single lung shots over the years; in those instances (where blood is also sparse and the evidence left on the arrow of little use), maybe I would have been better off not to have had the arrow pass completely through? Maybe the same is true of some other marginal hits, like liver? I don't know.I understand that aspect of it...
That said, just this past season, with a gun, I got a liver shot (pass thru). As you know those bleed very slowly and take a while to die. More so they leave very little trail. But I still tracked the animal and harvested him even though it took a full day and I had to cross 2 mountains to do so.
For the record, I am an engineer by education and advocation
Ok... Seems like a lot of responses think I am an idiot...
For the record, I am an engineer by education and advocation, as well as have spent over 20 years doing emergency medicine as a special forces medic. I have probably seen more "cuts" and "gun trauma" than most of you... (but maybe not Ashby ).
So I understand:
1) guns/arrows two different things with two different modalities. I apologize if my original post mislead some of you to think I thought they were the same. They are not, but BOTH modalities of killing involve the same underlying principles (energy, wound channel, damage to critical components...).
2) the differences in knives and bats - which is the difference between arrows and bullets. Again at the end of the day they both rely on the same fundamentals to kill.
Now to some of the assertions:
1. While energy dumping is not the primary means of an arrow killing, it is does still play a role. All trauma requires some energy. That "razor" (broadhead) wont' cut without it. Any energy leaving the animal (shoot thru) is energy not killing the animal.
2. The body is not a contiguous web of critical organs and critical blood vessels. In fact, I can not tell you how many time I have seen both knives and bullets have enter and exit bodies and not touch anything critical. So the theory of a shoot thru cuts more stuff - is only somewhat valid. It may, it may not. Most of the critical blood vessels you would want to cut (to kill) are in and around the heart.
3. [From Explosive Theory] (to contradict the not having hydrostatic shock)... Low energy explosive waves can create destruction as well as high energy. In fact, high energy (akin to a bullet) tend to cut. We use to use C4 charges to literally slice metal like a knife. Low energy waves (akin to an arrow) actually can produce more damage. Look at the Oklahoma city bombing - it was ANFO - very low energy. So I totally disagree with Jeremy Johnson on that one, as do a lot of wound experts. 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).
4. The "killing vitals" on almost all animals are: 1) blood, 2) heart 3) brain/spinal tissue... everything else is a secondary attack on those. So deflating the lungs attacks the heart and blood (no O2, heart starves), or hitting a pancreas or liver is a blood attack.
5. In a typical "good" shot, the core vital you want to hit is the heart and the blood vessels around the heart. Given a "big" broadhead maybe 2" wide you will be hoping to whack the heart and 1 major branch off the vessels leading in - that's about the best.
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. BUT.... remember it doesn't take much to cover a chest hole and create a seal that can stop or significantly slow that. Drops of blood (from that wound opening you want to bleed so you can track) act as a great barrier to pressure dropping - and as soon as they hit air they start getting sticky (from coagulation). That said, this MAY BE the only true value in shoot thru - that you get two holes and both lungs deflating - but you can still accomplish that with a non shoot thru.
Look folks, in starting this thread I wanted to start a discussion. I understand (fully) the general beliefs and theories AROUND shoot thru arrow killing. That said, I started this because it does not fully jive from a "fact" scenario (energy, physiology and terminal ballistics).
Not wanting any wars, but I am calling somewhat BS on the full "beliefs" that have lead to shoot thru. That said, anecdotally I have to accept there is some basis for it working because it seems like shoot thrus produce results.
LolSpoken like a retired doctor.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk