Your Opinion

[MetalHead]

On pass through? I try for complete pass through on all my shots. I believe it is easier to track the animal when it bleeds from two holes. Also my expirience as an EMT tells me that a double sucking chest wound would collapes <sp the lungs quicker. What do you guys think. Oh BTW I shoot a 70# Matthews, 30" 2413's with 100 grain ThunderHeads.

[Hoosier Daddy]

50/50. I have also heard that the arrow does more damage and drops the animal quicker if it stays in. Moves around while the animal runs, etc. Harder to blood trail though.

[SLEDDER]

Your theory on two holes is correct in my opinion. I have seen a few battle wounds during the Gulf war. One hole is better than two. An arguement against your theory would be that as the animal runs the broadhead continues to cut.

[Norm]

I will have to disagree about a pass through shot. 99% of the blood loss in a bow kill ends up in the chest cavity, not outside. If a arrow passes through, it will only bleed out as fast as the cut tissue from the surface area of the broadhead will let it. If a arrow stays in and continues to work as the animal runs, It will increase the volume of cut tissue and speed up the rate at which the blood can leave the system. The whole idea behind a broadhead is to bleed the animal out as quickly as possible. I have never had an animal go more than 100 YDS when the arrow stayed in. I've had them go 400+ yards with pass throughs. Just my 2 pennys.

Good luck to all !

[Thumper]

Urgk. I'm not feeling so good.

[Gobbaworms]

My experience is that either shot is a good one considering the larger arrows you are shooting. I've actually found pass through shots with the thinner carbon arrows less effective. The holes matt up easier. When the holes stay open, the diaphram can't pull a vacuum and the animal will lay down because it can't catch its breath. The key of course it to wait to track it for at least 40 minutes. Most guys that track the animal for over 100 yards didn't wait to track. (That was quite a blanket statement-didn't mean to step on any toes, I did say most, not all.)
Personally, I'm with you. I've had better success with a pass through shot with aluminum arrows.
Anyone else switch back the aluminums?

[bigshark]

Hi MH
I'll share with you what my experience has been for what it's worth. Pass-through shots
are my preferance but I am a firm believer that the vitals have to be hit. I hate to hit high because the blood does stay inside the animal. I conclude that it is not the diameter of the shaft that really helps in penetration but its weight. Some broadheads are tougher to slam through the animal than others. Big cutting edges are the toughest. With a heavy shaft, even though speed is not as great, pass-through is more likely. For seveal years I shot Forge-Wood shafts that ran from 700 grains up just for the bare wooden shaft. As I got older I reverted back to cedars which I still shoot today. The same
principle still applys...heavy shafts still
push big cutting edges through better than faster light ones. Big cutting edges also make big holes. Two edges are not enough. You need at least four to creat a "flap" and it also greatly reduces "shaft pinch". If anyone has to track anything 100 yds or more
they are either not making a good hit or they are not making a big-enough hole and one on both sides is better than just the entry hole. I know that the "hype" that is produced by marketing firms will refute my experience to get the public to buy what they want them to. Todays modern compound is
a blessing for todays hunters because he no longer has to work most of the year with his bow to keep those muscles in shape to pull a heavy poundage, flat shooting stick. But I hope you fellas will share your experiences with one another and as always the truth has great leverage working for it...TIME. In time we all find out what the facts really are... In time, I'm guessing compound users
will find a happy medium of shaft diameter and wall thickness that won't be the fastest but will hit the hardest for maximum penetration....Good luck to all of you bow hunters,whatever you prefer to shoot. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[Starr]

I've heard the argument of pass thru vs leaving the arrow in to do more damage my whole life, but has anybody ever NOT shot clean thru all animals they are shooting at? Especially deer. I've hit alot of deer that didn't even slow the arrow down. If it weren't for the "thunk", it seems like the arrow passes thru so quickly you missed, even though you know it was a perfect shot. Does anybody actually try to make a hit that leaves the arrow lodged? I could understand it on elk, maybe punching a shoulder blade, or hitting ribs on entry and exit, it's just a matter of mass. But even still, I've never seen an arrow lodged in any animal that I have shot or my hunting partners. I shot a pretty big mulley buck standing head on in the sternum and the arrow still exited thru the pelvic bone. It slowed the arrow down, but not as much as you would think.
I'm not a math major, but Bigshark your theory of larger, heavier arrows pushing broadheads thru isn't correct. I remember this equation from high school; energy = mass x velocity(squared), so if you want to "hit" something harder, increasing velocity will double the "hit", where increasing mass will not.

[Gobbaworms]

I'm gonna have to agree with Bigshark. Energy=mass x (velocity)2 is true however a lighter arrow, which travels faster out of the bow, also loses velocity faster. Therefore lighter arrows carry less kinetic energy downrange. Having used both 440 grain carbons and 550 grain aluminums, I've found the heavier arrows do much better. I haven't seen an arrow ballistics chart in order to confirm it however bullet ballistics charts confirm the theory.

[jet]

First you have to see them. Than arrow placement is the most imortant. I sound like my wifes uncle, but he is right.

I guess 2 holes might be better more exits to get the blood out. Sometimes an entrance hole can close up.

Jet~~~

[bigshark]

Srarr
I wish I could give you the math for bow limbs imparting energy to the arrow and the theory for sectional density but I can't.
I thought I was a fair math student until my transcript encouraged me to find my true talent elsewhere. I'm sure you are aware that even a light piece of straw driven fast enough will penetrate a 2by4...as we have all seen in the tornadeo movies...etc The theory is used to sell this cam over that, and if you don't shoot this or that cam your not getting as much speed as the one I want you to buy from me...etc This is usually not an outright statement but is what is implied. Starr, I won't try to convince you of anything....I only ask you to keep your mind open to the fact that speed with too little weight isn't any better than weight with too little speed. If you remain unbiased in your obsevations and experinces you will come up with an arrow and head combo that does the job the way you like it to perform. MH A friend called to remind me that the biggest bull I ever shot was not a pass-through...and he is correct. It was shot with a Butterfield Brut two blade head and it piled up less than 50 feet from where it was hit.....but he forgot that the hit was about 2 ribs behind the shoulder blade and a little bit above dead center up and down. We couldn't find a single drop of blood on the ground. That broadhead is wider than a blackdiamond delta...yet the wound was only a slit between the ribs and all of the blood was in the chest cavity...No more 2 edge blades for me. My point is the animal was just as dead and didn't go anywhere. But with a full load of air in those lungs at the moment of the hit...he might have made it
further....in such case I prefer a blood trail.

[bigshark]

Starr
Just thought of how to demonstrate the point
of theory we were chatting about. Place two
large sacks of sand out at 20 yards so. Fire a 22 bullet at one sack and check to see how
deep it penetrated. Now do the same with an arrow shot from your bow. See the differnce.
Can't believe it...try it again using a third bag of sand (the same size}but with a
30-30 or even an 06. See the differnce. This is why E= M times V squared leads us to invalid conclusions. Where did all that energy from the 06 go? Look how it tore the heck out of the sack but the bullet did't go very deep. This is because bullets and arrows don't work the same way.

[Starr]

Bigshark, I'm not disagreeing with you or even trying to prove you wrong, heck I shoot an older PSE (1987) with 620 grain aluminum arrows. I call them "rebar" cause not much will stop them. I've checked my bow speed, around 205 fps, so I'm not advocating speed over mass either. I'm just saying to increase the energy in your arrow hitting the target, increasing the speed will magnify it much more than mass.
Gobbaworms, this is true to a limit(arrows loosing kenetic energy), which you have pointed out. Identical situation with steel shot for shotguns. It is deadly within its applicable range, but try to hit anything beyond that, and it's worthless because it looses it's "punch", which lead doesn't.

Back to Bigshark and your experiment with side by side comparisons of an arrow and a 22 bullet. Apples and oranges is all I can say about that. My hunting partner shoots a fancy new bow with carbon arrows, and I have the "older" bow with aluminum arrows. Shooting at the same broadhead target with the identical broadheads, his punches thru the target every time, where mine only penetrates about 2/3 the arrow length. That is much more of a fair comparison of speed vs mass than a 22 bullet and an arrow. [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

[bigshark]

Starr
You are correct, apples versus oranges...The
fact that your partners arrow penetrates better than another one with the same broadhead tells us that his combination hits
harder. The point I was hoping to make is that many hunters have gone to large diameter
shafts to get the spine they need but are using ultra-thin wall thickness to get the highest speed. The results are pictures in the paper and on the tube of arrows hanging
out of animals and rifle-only fellas thinking we are nutts for doing such a thing.
Have a great season.

[bigshark]

MetalHead
Your using a 24 diameter arrow with a thin 13 wall out of a 70 lb bow. Can you barrow a 2219 arrow 30 inches long to test just so you can make a comparison. I would like to see you cut a rectangular hole in a sheet of
plywood that matches the trap on the chronoghaph. Shoot both arrows at maximum range for your hunting area. Say 35 or 40 yards max. How fast is the 2413 traveling at that range? How fast is the 2219 moving? The
additional speed required to shove the larger
diameter, lighter weight arrow through the animal might suprise you. Best way to really find out of course is to use them or real critters. I don't know how fast your 70 lb
bow will throw the 2413 but my experiences suggest that arrow will not pass-through an elk. But then your question was "is pass-through desirable". I think so, but a lot of people don't. Your field experiences and obsevations of others will be your best answer. Good Luck

[Gobbaworms]

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse but this type of exchange of information is good for everyone.

Starr, I think your steel shot example was right on the money. Let me share some of my observations not to refute anything you've said but because I'm dissapointed in wasting 2 years hunting with carbons and I wish I knew then what I know now. Watching people blow through targets is exactly why I gave carbons a try. But the reason I switched back is because after the first shoulder I hit at 40 yards, I saw 28" of my 29" arrow sticking out. Ironically, the year before, a buddy was shooting "broomsticks" out of his bow and broke both shoulders at 40 yards. Now I understand there are a lot of variables in that example so let me share another one. I bought a new bow this year. I shoot 70# with a 2315 arrow, total arrow weight is 541 grains at 256 fps. This results in a KE of 79.5. I used to shoot a 67# bow with a 441 grain carbon at 241 fps. This had KE of 57.5 (for those who are curious how to figure KE, use the energy formula above and divide by 445,800). Well, on the rare occasion I would duff a shot really bad and miss the backyard target [img]images/icons/shocked.gif[/img] that carbon arrow would be blow through the fence (1/2" cedar) and be 15 - 20 yards on the other side. With the new bow, for comparison sake, I shot the fence on purpose (please don't tell the wife.) Guess what? The arrow only went half way through. More 38% energy but less penetration. Why?

Here's my .02 cents on that. Broadhead targets and dry cedar fences stop arrows through friction on the shaft. Many bow shops recommend "glue-ons" for the carbons. These glue-ons fit over the outside of the shaft. When it hits a target, a hole is opened that is larger than the shaft and the arrow seemingly blow through. But even on the insert tips, the smaller surface area of the shaft allows it to travel further through the target. A 2315 has at least twice the surface area. 100% more stopping surface and only 38% more energy. So thinner shafts are better, right? No, because real world observations lead me to believe there is much less shaft friction when shooting a deer or elk.

Metalhead, Bigshark brings up a good point. If you are getting good arrow flight from your 2413's so be it. However the chart says you should be using a stiffer arrow like a 2219 or 2315. If you do the math, I bet you'll even pick up some KE without sacrificing much in the way of speed/accuracy.

[MetalHead]

bigshark, I got to test on an Elk yesterday [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] I did not get total pass through at 45+ yards only about half of the broadhead exited the opposit side of the elk. I had a slight quartering toward me shot and hit both lungs. He traveled less than 50 yards after the hit. I will post pictures as soon as I get the film back I am taking it in today.

[MetalHead]

Gobbaworms, according to the Easton Arrow Selection Chart on the eidersbow site the following arrows are all acceptable for my setup. As you can see the 2315 & 2219 are the popular choice they are not the only choices.
Size Type Weight (bare shaft 30")
2512 S 308 A
2413 S,75 312 B
2315 S,75 350 B P
2415 S 367 A
2219 S,75,E 413 B P
3-60 ACC 284
2-60 HSpd 221
340 ICS-H 279
340 EVLN 299
360 RDLN 251
A=Hard spine B=Medium spine P=popular shaft
After adding uni-nocks, inserts, vanes and a Thunderhead 100 (which by the way weighs 104 grains) my total arrow weight is 518 grains I push this arrow at 279 fps 7 yards from the crono with a draw weight of 72#. If I figured the kinetic energy right its 90.44 (a little help here) but I find the medium spine works very well with my Solo Cam. If I were shooting a twin cam bow you are quite right the arrow could be underspined for the draw weight, I could shoot the 2219 but I do not see a need for another 101 grains of arrow weight unless I'm hunting bear. I do plan to try 2315s this off season as just to see what kind of difference in penetration I will get by increasing my total arrow weight by 38 grains.

Yes if you could'nt tell I am fanatical about my bow hunting and have sacrificed many arrows and broadheads to experimentation the one my wife liked was the ACC's and muzzy, thunderhead, satilite combo's through 1/2" plywood at 30, 40 and 50 yards. She ask me in discust <sp what my findings were, I told her that Thunderheads were the toughest replacable blade broadhead in the world (personal opinion), she said ok, and that ACC's were to dang expensive to experiment with her responce was they were to expensive period then proceded to tell me I couldnt buy anymore. [img]images/icons/confused.gif[/img] BTW an ACC with a 100 grain Thunderhead (total weight 407 grains)traveling at 306 fps will blow through a sheet of 1/2" plywood at 40 yards and will penetrate to the fletching at 50 in both cases the shafts are not safe to shoot again as they push the insert up into the shaft and delaminate the carbon from the aluminum.

bigshark I will try the downrange crono test if I can talk my buddy into letting me shoot at his crono at that range and let you know the results.

God I love talking archery [img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[Gobbaworms]

What's wierd is that when you go to the Easton site, the only arrow that matches Eders site is the 2512. When you go to the Martin site, it has four matches which are 2512, 2315, 2219, and 3-60. I like the Martin site because it looks like the charts in the shop. It makes various setups easier to compare.

Anyway, it sounds like you're getting good flight from your 2413's and that's all that matters.

BTW I have KE envy. 90.44 is a mighty impressive number. And you don't need any help, thats the right number. I belive penetration will be slightly better with the 2315 because of the smaller diameter and more KE, but why change a good thing?

My best guess on the change to 2315 are as follows: Increase of 38 grains to a 556 grain arrow losing 7 fps to 272 fps producing 1.9 ft/lbs more KE to 92.3ft/lbs hitting 1 1/6" lower than your current setup at 40 yards.

I'm with you, I love talking this stuff. Let me know how close my predicitons are. Thanks.

[bigshark]

Metalhead
Your efforts to find answers are a credit to your ethics. We all need to be this interested and concerned about doing are best to be our best. There are no better friends to a hunter than confidence and competence. The placing of a sheet or a double sheet of plywood with hole the size of the window of your friends chronograph
will protech the works if it. There is no
danger to the chrono but it is sure a wierd
sensation trying to hit a hole a 35 yds or so. I to have a love of ballistics and what
works this wat and that. The compound bow has become much more sophistcated than the first Carrols that I can't be of much help
anymore. I hunt with longbows and now a then a hunt or two with my Bear take-downs. But I love to read the comments of those of you are
willing to share your knowledge, experiances and conclusions. Thank you for introducing such a good topic. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]