ORIGINAL: Arthur P

Sylvan, I guess I have to rise up and defend Dr. Ashby as well. What he's done is not a simple backyard experiment - like so many of the light arrow/carbon arrow/penetration tests that have been published have been. "Tests' that, to my mind, were designed specifically to prove a preconcieved theory with absolutely no attention given to scientific process.

Instead, Ashby conducted a multi-year, scientific study using a variety of different bows, arrow types and weights and broadhead sizes and styles, in the field on actual animals. It was done on behalf of the Natal government. It's purpose was to show whether or not archery gear is capable of taking African game and, if so, what equipment minimums they should institute. So, Ashby is not a 'guru'. As far as I know, he is the only man who has ever conducted such a study on such a large scale. He's currently using updated equipment on a similar study in Australia.

Now, the fact that Ashby's data do not correlate with the widely discussed theory that KE is the prime determinant in arrow penetration should cause someone to stop and think "WHY?" instead of simply dismissing his results because they do not fit nicely into the 'KE is King" theory. Unfortunately, far too many people do not open their minds and ask why, but stubbornly cling to their KE security blanket. Actually, I believe he did an outstanding job defining the why's in his paper.

For sure, any arrow that penetrates 20" in a zebra or wildebeast is definitely going to wink right through a deer's chest, and I guess there is a point where good enough really is good enough - at least in perfect conditions. But Ashby's results, on some of the largest, toughest animals in the world, certainly should be given proper consideration when this topic arises.