Well of course some of it makes sense, you have to have a sprinkling of truth in there to get folks on board. Its some fact presented in a way to mislead.
Take a couple of Ashby's rules as an example.
1) Of course arrow construction is important but THE #1 factor? Then why are literally millions of animals killed with a weak mech head on somewhat light arrows? The problem is, we have new guys that read the Ashby stuff thinking they need to build arrows that will pierce a bank vault door.....
Last time I checked, these animals don't have body armor.....
2) Do you really think FOC trumps arrow weight? It does to Ashby. Remember, Ashby used to claim very high FOC arrows fly further than avg FOC arrows. Thats physically impossible BTW and he was called out for it many years ago. He still clings to that premise and includes very high FOC in his dog and pony shows with rubber bands and weighted soda straws. Its on Youtube.
Now Ashby has changed his hard and fast "Thresholds" in recent years to become more mainstream.
He had to, his original theories were pretty far out there;
He still claims a single bevel BH outperforms double bevel...but BH manufacturers like VPA have said this is hogwash. Years ago the owner of Bowsite challenged the ashby claims and shot a cape buff bone with his double bevel head and sure enough, he split the bone. He split a bone going in on his shot to kill the beast too as I recall. Just one more experienced bowhunter that is telling us; Some of the stuff from these guys is hogwash to promote their own celebrity.
Now many mnfr's have jumped on the single bevel bandwagon....but of course its self serving, they sell more product. Many have proven that there is not a significant advantage to Ashby and Ranch Fairy's claims.
It all boils down to what Prof Spencer is showing in his lectures;
Be advised, these are not scientifically backed facts from Ashby or Ranch Fairy, its anecdotal observations from slanted tests devised to promote their theories.
Now ask yourself, how do these flip flamers like Elizabeth Holmes [Theranos] or Bernie Madoff types get so far? They sprinkle some truth in there, show results they want you to see...and bam, they suck you in. Sound familiar?
>
1. Yes. I do believe it’s the # 1 factor. but on what scale i haven’t decided. If it’s 1,000 shots with a shitty arrow before error and 5,000 with a sound arrow. It’s an improvement, but at what degree does that helpMost hunters shoot 10-50 deer in a lifetime.
I could shoot a deer with a broom stick with a pointed end, but there’s a better option. As with a mechanical head, it can work and does work 1000’s of times a day. But it also fails. If there is an option proven to reduce failure, and increase efficiency in kills (not shooter error), why would anyone not be interested?
2. You’re right on the money, this is when I was first reading up and right away questioned the legitimacy of the ‘studies’.
And of course double bevel and mechanical broadheads are going to cry foul, they would lose their business. I shoot a stinger buzz cut, I have also shot fixed 3 blade and even mechanicals for 2 years. I never had a mechanical fail, but less moving parts is what I was looking for.
Unfortunately ‘science’ becomes cloudy when $$$ gets involved.
Sirius/Apollo, grizzly stick, etc.
As for the body armor, again nail on the head. I want a pass through arrow. But I don’t want to be able to pass through a deer, a tree and stick 10” in the ground. That’s a waste of energy. I want the energy transferred to the deer. Same reason why we don’t use fmj to rifle hunt.
Even if Ashby is right or wrong, people are talking and people are testing. The rage craze came and went, this to shall pass. Where we wind up next, who knows but people will argue that also.
No one is being forced to use any arrow they don’t want, and I’ve seen plenty of deer killed with Walmart arrows and heads. To them, a $100 broad head is a waste, to another it’s a bargain if it makes them feel like success will be higher.
