Ashby and Adcock
04-15-2008, 01:44 PM
#1
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 7,571
Ashby and Adcock
Anyone see OL Adcock and Ed Ashby's newest thing. They are looking to reduce the surface area of fletchings (2 1/2"), make noise pretty much non-existant, and stabilize a fixed blade broadhead. The fletch is put on straight with a helical clamp. FOC is exteme. That red ring is not paint, it is called a turbulator. I guess it's from an aviation concept. Interesting.
04-15-2008, 01:54 PM
#2
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Dover, PA USA
Posts: 5,497
RE: Ashby and Adcock
Nope haven't see that at all? I'm assuming there are 4 fletchings there as well?
Is arrow noise really that much of a consideration given the distances we are shooting?
Also isn't there a point where high FOC becomes counterproductive with nose diving arrows?
I do like the overall concept of heavy arrows, and those single bevel 2 blade heads like those Grizzlies but is this more of a thing for extending the capabilities of traditional gear on larger or dangerous game because it seems like people have no problem slicing through whitetails consistently with much less consideration for extremes or detail?
Is arrow noise really that much of a consideration given the distances we are shooting?
Also isn't there a point where high FOC becomes counterproductive with nose diving arrows?
I do like the overall concept of heavy arrows, and those single bevel 2 blade heads like those Grizzlies but is this more of a thing for extending the capabilities of traditional gear on larger or dangerous game because it seems like people have no problem slicing through whitetails consistently with much less consideration for extremes or detail?
04-15-2008, 03:41 PM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Obama made me join the NRA for 5 years !
Posts: 2,181
RE: Ashby and Adcock
A) your arrows should fly without fletch anyway
B) assuming they are, then the broadhead will cause eratic flight, even though they spin true
C) little 2.5 inch feathers fletched by 4 should be able to stabilize that broadhead
Ashby and OL both are high on getting all you can get out of your setup. An extra 1% here and .5% there adds up
Did you read Ashby's article #3 ? We're talking 9-11% difference in penetration (best I remember) just by going to high FOC and single bevel heads. Thats HUGE
I've shot, and losta couple ofbig bucks due 100% to not aving an extra 4-6" penetration. I'll shoot heavy total weight this fall and high FOC and singlebevel No Mercy heads because of Ashby's studies
B) assuming they are, then the broadhead will cause eratic flight, even though they spin true
C) little 2.5 inch feathers fletched by 4 should be able to stabilize that broadhead
Ashby and OL both are high on getting all you can get out of your setup. An extra 1% here and .5% there adds up
I do like the overall concept of heavy arrows, and those single bevel 2 blade heads like those Grizzlies but is this more of a thing for extending the capabilities of traditional gear on larger or dangerous game because it seems like people have no problem slicing through whitetails consistently with much less consideration for extremes or detail?
I've shot, and losta couple ofbig bucks due 100% to not aving an extra 4-6" penetration. I'll shoot heavy total weight this fall and high FOC and singlebevel No Mercy heads because of Ashby's studies
04-15-2008, 04:09 PM
#5
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
RE: Ashby and Adcock
I enjoy reading most of their stuff (although I don't always agree), but this looks to me like figuring out a new kind of sledgehammer to drive a thumbtack. Personally, I'd like to seea dependable chart on howto come up with heavy (I mean real heavy--800-1,000 grains or so) for heavy bows. We know that is a big plus for reallybig game, and a big pain to figure out on your own.
I guess it would be fun if you had the time and money for it, but we're the tiny minority in the hunting world, and those of us who will ever have a chance to hunt really big game is only a fraction of that minority.
Don't get me wrong here--not too long ago I spent an hour or two on the phone with Dr. Ashby, and the pleasure was all mine. I've also had an interesting discussion or three with O.L. via e-mail (he didn't seem like much of a talker in person).
I guess what I'm getting at here is it seems like there would be something more pressing for all that brain power to be working on--like maybe a new string material?[8D]
Chad
I guess it would be fun if you had the time and money for it, but we're the tiny minority in the hunting world, and those of us who will ever have a chance to hunt really big game is only a fraction of that minority.
Don't get me wrong here--not too long ago I spent an hour or two on the phone with Dr. Ashby, and the pleasure was all mine. I've also had an interesting discussion or three with O.L. via e-mail (he didn't seem like much of a talker in person).
I guess what I'm getting at here is it seems like there would be something more pressing for all that brain power to be working on--like maybe a new string material?[8D]
Chad
04-16-2008, 06:31 AM
#6
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Obama made me join the NRA for 5 years !
Posts: 2,181
RE: Ashby and Adcock
LBR - I am going to show you a way to get 20% better gas mileage out of your vehicle. Are you interested ? Why ? Would like to get that additional performance ? The differnce between 20 mpg and 24 mpg over the course of 50,000 miles and $4 a gallon gas matters, doesn't it ?
OL gets that kind of % increase in bow performance. Ashby's results (have you read them?) shows clearly that using FOC arrows, slick arrows, 2 blade single heads etc etc all get you little bits that ends up being a nice bit of additional performance.
Its the differnce between 6" of penetration and 14" inches - the difference might very well be a dead buck vs a wounded and lost one.
I think it matters.
OL gets that kind of % increase in bow performance. Ashby's results (have you read them?) shows clearly that using FOC arrows, slick arrows, 2 blade single heads etc etc all get you little bits that ends up being a nice bit of additional performance.
Its the differnce between 6" of penetration and 14" inches - the difference might very well be a dead buck vs a wounded and lost one.
I think it matters.
04-16-2008, 07:20 AM
#7
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississippi USA
Posts: 15,296
RE: Ashby and Adcock
Not really an "apples to apples" comparison for me, or for 95% or more of the folks I talk to. A closer comparison would be this: I'm allotted 20 gallons of fuel a day to travel to work and back. I make the trip every day with gas to spare. It won't make any difference to me what my mpg is. In other words, it doesn't really matter to me howmuch furthermy arrow flies or buries into the dirt after I get a pass-through.[8D]
I understand your concern, but honestly I can't help but think there's something else missing in the equation with your experiences. There's just too much evidence to the contrary.
For instance, a complete pass-through (including the off-side leg) on a 650+ pound black bear with a 52# recurve. Full broadhead penetration on a record book gemsbok (about the size of a small elk) with a 47@26 longbow. Pass through on an 80-90# pig with a 30# recurve (drawn to 26" or less). None of these had anything special done to the arrow, and none of the bows usedwere any of the ones touted as being the fastest. The list could go on and on and on. Shoot, Fred Bear killed a bull elephant with a 75# recurve (one shot), way back before any of the super bows/strings/broadheads/arrows were invented.
In pretty much all of the instances I personally know of where there was a penetration problem, it wasn't aproblem with the bow or the arrow. Bad release, short draw, something in the way, etc.--all of these are really easy to let happen in the heat of the moment, and they will all effect penetration.
'Course I can't say that if you had used what you plan to use this year it wouldn't have helped--we'll never know. I just don't see it as being a big problem for most folks.
Anyway, my post wasn't all that serious (although I do wish someone would publish that arrow chart). I hadn't read your post when I made mine, but I doubt I would have changed it much if any. You posted on what concerns you, just like I did.
When I was talking to Dr. Ashby a few weeks ago, I asked him about water buffalo. He is confident I could kill one with the bow I have now, with the right arrow. That made me feel better, but if I get to go I'm still taking a heavier draw weight because I've talked to a lot of other folks that have killed them that would never consider using 66#. Point being, if I have to make a decision it will be based on the majority of the evidence I can find.
Btw, we've got a bunch of tournaments coming up in the next 6 weeks or so--there's the Children's Hospital benefit at Tannehill, the TN Classic at Twin Oaks, another Lost Tribe shoot, the Jerry Pierce Memorial, then in June the Howard Hill. You coming to any of them? I plan to make all of them!
Chad
I understand your concern, but honestly I can't help but think there's something else missing in the equation with your experiences. There's just too much evidence to the contrary.
For instance, a complete pass-through (including the off-side leg) on a 650+ pound black bear with a 52# recurve. Full broadhead penetration on a record book gemsbok (about the size of a small elk) with a 47@26 longbow. Pass through on an 80-90# pig with a 30# recurve (drawn to 26" or less). None of these had anything special done to the arrow, and none of the bows usedwere any of the ones touted as being the fastest. The list could go on and on and on. Shoot, Fred Bear killed a bull elephant with a 75# recurve (one shot), way back before any of the super bows/strings/broadheads/arrows were invented.
In pretty much all of the instances I personally know of where there was a penetration problem, it wasn't aproblem with the bow or the arrow. Bad release, short draw, something in the way, etc.--all of these are really easy to let happen in the heat of the moment, and they will all effect penetration.
'Course I can't say that if you had used what you plan to use this year it wouldn't have helped--we'll never know. I just don't see it as being a big problem for most folks.
Anyway, my post wasn't all that serious (although I do wish someone would publish that arrow chart). I hadn't read your post when I made mine, but I doubt I would have changed it much if any. You posted on what concerns you, just like I did.
When I was talking to Dr. Ashby a few weeks ago, I asked him about water buffalo. He is confident I could kill one with the bow I have now, with the right arrow. That made me feel better, but if I get to go I'm still taking a heavier draw weight because I've talked to a lot of other folks that have killed them that would never consider using 66#. Point being, if I have to make a decision it will be based on the majority of the evidence I can find.
Btw, we've got a bunch of tournaments coming up in the next 6 weeks or so--there's the Children's Hospital benefit at Tannehill, the TN Classic at Twin Oaks, another Lost Tribe shoot, the Jerry Pierce Memorial, then in June the Howard Hill. You coming to any of them? I plan to make all of them!
Chad
04-16-2008, 09:00 AM
#8
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moravia NY USA
Posts: 2,164
RE: Ashby and Adcock
Way more animals are lost due to poor shooting or shot selection then are ever lost to poor penetration. Reference every fall the number of "missed at 8,10 15 ...... yds" threads on the various boards. If you are not getting full penetration on NA animals with the typical 45# or larget setup, your tuning is off or you are hitting them in the wrong place.
Most trad hunters would be much better served learning to be more accurate and when (and when not)to shoot then obsessing about how much deeper in the dirt to get their arrow.
Most trad hunters would be much better served learning to be more accurate and when (and when not)to shoot then obsessing about how much deeper in the dirt to get their arrow.
04-16-2008, 11:24 AM
#9
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Castile N.Y.
Posts: 2,090
RE: Ashby and Adcock
Hmm interesting concept. I could see the use for deer, my turkey arrows i just set up are halfway between normal shield and flu-flu. Im figuring that this will keep the arrow in the bird and not let it do some more damage. They also sound like a jet plane going through the air...
04-16-2008, 12:39 PM
#10
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 7,571
RE: Ashby and Adcock
Also isn't there a point where high FOC becomes counterproductive with nose diving arrows?
I don't believe so in theory anyway. The real constraint comes with arrow material that is available today. The only decent material today that can be used with the extreme FOC is carbon. OK, you might be able to get away with footed wood shafts, but it won't be easy. I've tried it with aluninum and had poor results. After conversing with Dr. Ashby, he has also found the same (with aluminum).
I think OL is testing tungsten (spelling) now.
Is arrow noise really that much of a consideration given the distances we are shooting?
The distance card could be used in a variety of ways. Do we need laminated bowsconsidering thedistances we are shooting, do we need new string materials considering the distances we are shooting (that was for LBR [8D]) etc., etc.
Thiswould just basically be another choice available. If I can get my arrows quieter, get at least the same stabilizing characteristics, and get a bit more out of my bow in speed, I might be interested in the design.
