ThePreBanMan wrote:That study isn't scientific and is fundamentally flawed IMHO. It doesn't eliminate any variables in the "testing". It's really not even a test as much as it is some compiled statistics. It's not an apples to apples comparison. What were the draw lengths of the fixed blade shooters vs mechanical? Arrow weights? What about FOC? Average shot distance? What were the draw weights? Who had modern equipment vs early 1990s compounds, etc. The number of hunters in each pool was also drastically different and that directly impacts averages. They only sampled 26 mechanical shooters against 119 fixed blade shooters? The differences in previously stated variables would cause huge swings in the result averages with such a small sample pool. There's one thing that is always true when statistics are involved... Garbage in = garbage out.
The authoritative study on the topic - IMHO - is Dr. Ashby's study. That is apples to apples. Specifically, that study (an actual scientific study with actual testing, not just compiled statistics) shows, irrefutably, that when all things are equal (arrow weight, draw weight, draw length, FOC, fletching, distance to target, bow/equipment, etc) that fixed blade broadheads and specifically single bevel heads, penetrate better, maintain their integrity better and punch through bone better. In fact there was not a category in which a mechanical outperformed a 2 blade single bevel head on actual game animals. Sure the mechanical cuts WIDER but the fixed blade cuts DEEPER. Now measure the surface area of the wound channel produced by each and guess what, the single bevel fixed head cut more tissue.
The study also found that arrows with high FoC outperformed arrows of the same weight with lower FoC. But that there were diminishing returns with FoC above 19% (the sweet spot). It also found that heavy arrows outperform lighter arrows on game. The best performing combo on game was a heavy arrow with FoC at 19% with a single bevel fixed blade head.
I'm not trying to demonize anyone who chooses a mechanical based on it... Hey - use what you like. But make sure you call the ball with eyes wide open... Mechanicals are a pro shop's best friend. They can just eyeball the "tune" with a bow square, sell the dude some mechanicals with it so his BHs hit with FPs and ship it. Saves them a ton of time. Getting FBBHs to impact with FPs requires a lot of time/work to properly tune. Time is money... That's why pro shops are so quick to sling mechanicals at folks.
My opinion is worth what you paid to read it, but there it is...
Ashby's studies were also done with a recurve, because as he stated in his kifarucast podcast they used an older darton compound bow and everything became a passthrough. Hard to measure penetration issues when the arrows don't get stopped. My takeaway being, if you are going out with a trad bow then yes use the Ashby system, if you have a modern compound you have a lot more flexibility.