The bow hunters that reached their prime in the mid 2000s and 2010s using mechanicals and 400gr arrows hate you. I love it. Everytime I talk to someone at the range or shop they hate your teachings. I love it! Makes me want to run heavy high foc even more
Yep. I get snarky ass comments from guys at my shop and when I shoot sometimes on the range. I got lucky and started off with high FOC hand loads, never even owed a flapper or twizzler. But I've also bugged RF A LOT via email. And he ALWAYS replies, regardless of how dumb the question may be. :)
Troy, I’m excited for you and THP + Rocket Man to get together for summer! I love the videos and podcasts from the last few summers. Dr. Ashby and his study is definitely amazing. You turned me onto them several years ago- thank you. I truly believe, until someone loses a nice animal/buck due to lack of penetration, they will continue to follow bow shops who promote speed. I’m here in WV and there’s a lot of bow hunters. Each bow shop owner I talk to thinks heavy arrows and tuffhead broadheads are unnecessary. Oh well. Thanks RF!
You know what really makes me mad about this channel? I've been coming here for years with every intention of arguing,,but after a few minutes of watching , I find myself agreeing with you!! You've got me abandoning my precious "flapper" heads for fixed blades, I'm looking at heavier arrows, and God help me,,I'm even considering single bevels!
Hey man, when it makes sense, it makes sense. It drives me nuts when I see other people bashing him on there channels and he is just trying to help and has never singled anyone out for anything. Like why must we be petty.
You’ve helped me greatly! When I first started hunting I used mechanicals because they shot better. Then I learned about tuning bow and arrows. I went from seeing deer running away with half my arrow sticking out of them, to having pass through shots. But the commercials for those mechanicals showed them going furthest into ballistic gel….. Thanks and keep up the great content
It's a shame this type of content doesn't reach more bowhunters. People think just because channels have a large following they need to take the content as gospel. Keep the common sense coming RF🎉
Thank you for confirming my suspicion. I knew something was up when I was watching some gel tests of a broadhead I was curious about a couple years ago. 2 and 3 blade non vented solid heads were getting "out penetrated" by mechanical's and just about every vented fixed head in ballistic gel. In some cases this was by a pretty wide margin. The head I was curious about in particular was doing especially poor. I thought there was no way in hell a solid, sharp, solid 3 blade with a reasonable blade angle would lose out to some chopper head in a real animal...The gel is a friction machine. The more surface area on an arrow the quicker the gel stops it. Non vented heads have more surface area and depending on ferrule design don't open up a path to create less friction for the shaft. My theory anyway. Like you said, this doesn't represent real life at all. I take those videos with a grain of salt. I like Lusk's because of his accuracy, durability, and edge retention tests.
Yeah it was made exclusively for stopping bullets I mean most people if they look closely at where the jell stopped the head it has such a friction on it the arrow tip actually backs out a little bit from it stopped
Hell, I admit it... I NEVER even thought about the blocks that way.... There was one video that made me think "Something does not seem quite right with this test....".
I had a strong suspicion that ballistic gel gripped the arrow shaft too much, but holy cow I had no idea it was THAT grippy!! That totally explains why two blade heads rarely outperform 3 and 4 blade heads in gel, they don’t pulverize the gel with enough cuts to lessen its grip on the arrow shaft. I can see why the QAD Exodus does so well in those tests: that big chisel tip punches a hole through the gel for the shaft to slide through.
@@jaronwhite2491 Animals aren't grippy. Next time you clean a deer just take 5 minutes to feel how soft the internal organs actually are. Then look at how THIN the ribcage actually is. If you've had a gel block in hand, its quite disturbing compared the actual animal parts. On the micros, sure, less surface area in a grippy medium. Easy peasy, agreed, in gel. Hunting Arrows have broadheads and meat tends to open up when cut. Blood lubricates, etc. Not really an issue "on meat". Perfect arrow flight and broadheads that don't flex or dull on impact are much more important - hunting.
A good friend of mine we where talking about this type of testing awhile back and thinking why we are watching this, and accepting the type of methods instead of our own experiences on our hunting seasons before ,this video is needed thank you good hunting everyone.
Have you ever thought of shooting the Paul Harrell Meat target? It is an analog for an animal. Paul had many videos where he shoots the meat target with various ammo brands, then digs the bullets out and offers his opinion on their performance. The same could be done with broadheads.
Another great video! I used rage broadheads before I started watching your videos and had terrible results. Last season I made some arrows using the principles taught in your video and had my first pass through on a deer, and I saw it go down! Thanks for these videos! I've learned a lot and single bevel broad heads rock!
Sadly I don't think many people realize how many handgun calibers would stop in a block this size. They also must not realize that the diaphragm of pretty much any living thing has some air in it as well..
Maybe testing balls of projectiles for crime scenes is the intended use of Ballistic Gel. But using the medium of animal hide, flesh & bone might not be good enough. Ever had to makes cuts on a deer carcass with a knife that dulls easily compared to one made of superior steel? When u do u find out that to have structural integrity u 1st need that & the 2nd thing u need is design. I have a 30 yr old beaver knife that has a wood handle. It is by far better @ edge retention than anything I've owned. It has a round tip that is more like a spatula. By far the best fleshing knife I've ever owned. I used to clean skin beavers with it for it & never needed a fleshing beam to do it. It's pretty much a knife that still makes smooth thin slices from apples that I feed to animals on the farm. Probably has better edge retention than half the heads on the market. ❤
Great video and great way to show how grippy the block is. (And how to show it on a video) Never would of thought of that. Keep it up and keep having fun.
I’ve always felt this way. Too much drag to get an accurate representation of arrow/ broadhead penetration. Thank you for clearing it up and also good on you for the anti bashing. Too many keyboard warriors out there.
RF next you can enlighten everyone that shooting dry bones doesn’t replicate bones in a live animal. It’s almost like Dr. Ed figured this out years ago.
I think there is a place for the gel when trying to measure some details, as long as they are not using it to compare to "meat". it is a consistent medium, therefor there can be some information extrapolated from shooting it, but I do agree that it does not give "lifelike" medium results. Thanks as always for the video Troy.
Hey Troy, I do have to say that your right about ballistic gels that they are not a great tool for testing penetration. I do believe that the average archery consumer is miss using ballistic gels over all. Instead of using them for penetration they should be using them to see what the broad head is doing inside the animal. If someone was to use a ballistic dummy instead vs a block that would simulate a more realistic test. But again that’s still seeing what the wound channel is and may not be a very accurate measurement of penetration. Anyways just some food for thought and really enjoy the videos please keep them coming!
I think there is something we all can learn from shooting gel blocks in the videos other than pure penetration , it’s the wound channel these broad heads make or don’t make for that matter . Still prefer your necropsy tests on the pigs over any gel test . Keep up the great content.
I agree 100% with the concept about penetration tests in jell compared to animals my question is do you think that it is a fair test as far as what broadhead arrow combination penetrates the best in general which could possibly apply on animals too I don’t know and am just asking your opinion
No. Field points or broadheads its the same. On you tube we see a pile of broadhead and gel tests on the internet. NOTHING really out performs anything. Every Arrow penetrates about half way. 100% is a tough number when we don't see some random broadhead pass through while others don't. BUT watch hunting videos and the arrow penetration varies widely. Analyzing wound channels is probably decent data. However, this assumes the broadhead will be highly effective to actually penetrate on animals (per my comment above about hunting videos). Another challenge, gel and foam do not have any exterior hard or variable density substrates (ribs, thick skin, shield on pigs, shoulder meat is pretty thick on big deer and elk, etc.) Finally, the gel and foam are usually perfectly flat and all arrows hit at 90 degrees which allows higher performance for all platforms. Animals are not Minecraft. They are quite round, bones are round and variable thickness depending upon where they attach to the next bone, ribcage is NOT flat, quartering shots, etc.
Thanks I suspected that to be the answer and yes I watch hundreds of archery hunting videos and agree with your statements I mostly bow hunt and am switching to traditional but will still use my compound occasionally I’ve never shot into jell so I was curious if it in any way simulated a accurate penetration example on a animal I appreciate your honesty and your response have a great day
It amazes me people still debate sharpe fixed heads and “heavy” arrows vs “light” arrows and mechanical. The fixed heads and heavier arrows out perform light in my experience. I’ve had both.
Ranch Fairy 🧚♀️ ! I happen to be rather talented at missing however, I only miss when the shot really matters and I watch helplessly as my arrow sails beautifully over the back of what had to be the most amazing Buck that ever walked the backwoods of Putnam County New York! Gone forever! 🏹🏹🦌🦌👍😎😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
Perhaps watching body confirmation could help with that. A deer isn't flat & the body is rounded. I've found shooting & practicing more from a tree prepares me better for the real thing. None of my targets r broadside. It makes a big difference with brain memory.
I want to thank you RF. My 660 grain 250spine 200gr VPA single bevels 123 grain inserts flying like darts . Bear Adapt bow is so quite .All thanks to you
I would like to see you test something like Paul Harrell's "meat target" with arrows. It would be somewhat redundant since you have pigs to use. But it could give great insight while letting you control certain variables (like angle of impact, bone density, etc.) that are almost impossible to achieve repeatedly with living targets. Especially since pigs never stop moving. It could even give you a chance to catch the arrows on exit to see what damage the bones did to the broadhead without them going into rocks and dirt.
@RanchFairy I wish I did. Lol He's brought a different perspective to the gun community much the way you have in the bow community. If it weren't for you, I never would've heard about Ed Ashby. And I probably wouldn't have picked up a bow. I looked at it because of the THP guys. But it was your and Ed's work that helped me get enough confidence in my setup to take the shots.
The FBI used organic gel to compare handgun rounds to each other. I believe it is made to simulate muscle tissue only. It actually works well with bullets as it shows various wound tracks and tissue disruption. With arrows, not so much. The clear ballistic gel most are using for these arrow tests, is a little different. I like watching all testing, and use all this info to make informed choices. That said I have seen broadheads do some really crazy things in animals! Gel testing I find to be the least informative, unless there is some type of durability testing to go along with it. Heads that have reasonable cutting surface and hold together under extreme impact conditions penetrate best. Just like a bullet those that don't expand penetrate the deepest all things being identical. A broadhead that falls apart or "expands" uses a lot of energy in the process. You know what works becuase you have shot lots of animals. I know what works for the same reason. That said I follow one broadhead testing channel because he uses a lot of different materials to shoot heads into. They don't tell us what the head will do in an animal, only how the heads compare to one another. I then use that information along with what I know from my own experience as well as people like yourself to pick heads to hunt with. The bigger and tougher the animal the more important broadhead integrity is. Sharpness is something that should never be compromised. Gel looks good on camera, but really doesn't tell us much all alone .
100% agree, how can every single arrow and broadhead shot into a medium be almost the same result every time and be a realistic outcome, the answer is that it cannot and should not be the test material of choice. The testing of arrow and broadhead on a downed animal directly after a kill is the only test I would deem a realistic result since it is the actual thing you are spending all the time in the off season and season intending to put the arrow through. Thank you ranch fairy and the Ashby foundation and of course Dr Ashby. Will be purchasing the single bevel rf tuffheads in the next couple days.
You got me in a dark hole lol. Everyone at the pro shops think I'm crazy with the arrow setups. Im currently waiting on my vulcan RF EDITION arrows an the 200 grain sb broadheads.
Yeah there is one channel that uses these tests and he does a great job but like you there is nothing that simulates flesh and bone like flesh and bone. I did a couple videos using a deer scapula and a upper cow femur just to see what would happen they were not great😂 but I had fun and I learned a lot. Especially not all Broadheads are created equal. Even fix blades. Great stuff sir
Maybe you could develop a layered target that better simulates an animal. Maybe thin hide, bone simulation, thin layer of gel, open foam space then the reverse for the exit side.
Doesn't exist yet. I FEAR someone will come up with something......call it "the next great thing" BUT not validate it against animal / "on meat" performance.
Love to watch this channel and how knowledgeable Troy is regarding all aspects of Archery. I agree that gell or cardboard does not realistically replicate the body of a deer. I think that these guys use gell as it will stop arrows and show you which ones penetrate the best through an inanimate object (not trying to replicate deer here). Then we can make decisions on which broadhead to use for our deer hunting. If they used a target which all or most broadheads blow through then it would defeat the purpose of the test comparison. Troy, does this make sense?
RF- totally understand and respect the heavy FOC and "adult arrow" concept... BUT i think your assumption is "Misleading". I don't think that people who are shooting into gel or cardboard believe that it represents a live animal. It is just a consistent way to measure performance- not to mention its a great way to see the wound channel. When performing a good test, you need to have a consistent way to measure your results. You can't get that with an animal that has different muscle mass and bone thickness, thus the consistent gel. I've been following you for a while and do believe that heavier fixed blades perform better for hunting. Keep the content coming.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’d think the ballistics gel would only test Ke. Which is why shooting the same weight arrow with different but same weight broadheads will give you pretty similar results. Id like to see what different weights could do to the gel
Great video I've always said the gel blocks aren't a good real life representation the only reason I like to see those tests is so I can see what the cuts look like the depth they go in is a moot point cuz they all stop within an inch of each other
I started bow archery journey in the self bows community, making my own bows, arrows, stone points, etc. But 8-9 years ago, I read the Ashby reports and saw some videos of Dr. Ashby talking/demonstrating some of the principles of physics that determine arrow performance. The science that he talked about then made sense, and I've been a proponent of the heavy arrow solid broadhead theory for years. I mean if I can shoot an arrow that is going 150 fps and blow through deer, elk, or moose, and heavy bones, why then do I watch compound shooters nail an elk in the shoulder and only get 3 to 5 inches penetration? The compound shooters arrows are going at least double my arrow speed, but they stop on the shoulder. I like to plan for plan b. Thanks for your consent.
I need some help/advice from anyone watching. Im about to order a ranch fairy bareshaft test kit but not sure what spine. I shoot. 27in arrow at 57-60lbs. I was going to do the 250/300 but wondering if I need to get the 300/350… every dumb spine chart says 400 but I know that’s too high. Let me know!
I'd go with 250/300. I shoot a Mathews Z3 at 60lbs 28.5 inches. The 250/300 kit worked for me nicely. Bow was bareshafting nicely with 100gr inserts, and a 200gr head, 250 spine.
@@Agridefense I went with Easton axis 340 spine, 100 grain half out insert by ethics, 125 vpa single bevel and a nockturnal nock. Two bucks so far. One went through the shoulder no problem and deer died 15 yards. Other one I forgot my quiver and had a dull practice broadhead… pass through, deer went 75 yards. Love this setup! I did try 300 spine bareshaft but 340 were darts
Ballistic gel is used for consistency not replicating animal tissue. You can kill anything with a field point if you put it the same place as you should with a broadhead.
@RanchFairy here's my question if you can shoot an arrow set at a fixed distance into a pressure sensing device and get a data set of those arrows energy at that distance just shooting through the atmosphere, then repeat the process only this time using fresh killed pigs in front of the sensor far enough away to record the energy loss after the pass through, would that not be a legitimate representation of the amount of kinetic energy and momentum lost ? Wouldn't this solve some of the issues of "not being able to guage that left over energy that you can't gauge once the arrow leaves the animal" as Dr. Ashby says. If for example arrow A hits at 45 ft lbs in an unimpeded flight then arrow A hits after the pass through at say 22 ft lbs isn't fair to say that we know that arrow A lost 23 ft lbs of energy. Now repeat the tests with the various FOC arrows and gauge the data sets. Ofcourse every pig is different but the variables can be reduced to the point where your data is now easily bracketed and therefore reliably more realistic? I'm sure there is a legitimate way to perform this. Maybe you have not looked at it from this perspective or you have and I'm just crazy lol or not 😎
Honestly this question should answer itself. Ballistic gel was made to drink up kinetic energy from bullets, so it's a good test for bullets. But does anybody out there think any broadhead on the market would have any trouble penetrating a pile of inflated lungs? Obviously not. So what is the problem? Well the problem is the lungs are covered with dirt, hair, hide, muscle, bone, and muscle. So any test of an arrow has got to go through that FIRST, and then something as soft as lungs. Could be water ballons! That's it. If you can blow through hide, dirt, hair, muscle and bone, you're not gonna have any trouble with the lungs! (Maybe with the vasculature. Like t Troy says, arteries can be tough. Well guess who's done that? His name rhymes with Proctor Fred Slashby, and it does not matter that his test medium was not homogenous, because it's sample size is gigantic. Keep it up, Troy!
I use John Lusk's channel as a starting point to analyze cut on contact (CoC) broadheads. He does perform consistent tests on broadheads which I do like. I found out about the Wedge Heads (WHs) from his channel. The channel gives me good information on durability and sharpness. After using some different broadheads, the Magnus Black Hornet broadhead are just not that durable for me due to the aluminum ferrule that breaks/bends too easily. I moved over to the WHs and TuffHead (TH) Evolutions 2.0 which are much more durable. I agree that the ballistic gel penetration test is not indicative of animal penetration. It looks cool but does it accurately represent animal penetration? Looks like the answer in "No". For example, if a WH penetrates 6" and a TH penetrates 7" into gel block then so what? They will both go through an animal. Maybe the answer is building a composite block (carpet/plywood/foam/plywood/carpet) target and then shooting through it into a force/impact gauge on the other side to capture the loss of momentum.
Would it be a better test to use a gel bock at the thickness of the thoracic wall, then an air gap, then another block with the same wall thickness? This may prove the energy carried by a heavy arrow. I believe the adult arrow. I built a 525g arrow with 22%foc arrow coming off the bow at 277fps, and it flys better and penetrats great. So good, I used it in indoor league and was shooting through the target butt and hitting the wall behind it.
I seriously felt stupid to have given credibility to gel blocks. As usually (not always) you're right! But you ain't right lol At least you admit this is a dictatorship. The cool thing is it's not tyrannical, it's peaceful and you do allow open discourse. I see the wisdom in not wanting people's names or channels brought up because it's very easy to think that the gel tells us which one delivers the best end result. Please don't delete the comment if someone is taking credit for their own video that you screenshot, because someone that's willing to admit they didn't know or hadn't thought outside of that box, is worthy to be recognized. Thanks Troy. You're awesome
Good comment. Yeah, I try to not slam other YT'ers who honestly are putting in a ton of work. They may or may not know the results and "why" they are getting them. So it's not fair to say they are intentionally misleading people. But there are some folks selling broadheads and "magic" arrows, fletching, etc. who will claim, clearly, that their magic invention directly correlates to animal penetration. The dictator will not allow for the intended misinformation.
This topic (broadheads/ballistic gel) is how I ended up watching this video. It just didn't make sense to me why gel would be used as a close medium to simulate a med-large game cavity.
Through all of your test scenarios, have you tested the effect a light draw weight has on arrow flight and foc? I'm asking for myself. I suffer from an elbow injury from a car wreck last and have not been able draw full weight yet.
Good video Todd. As you've pointed out, gel testing is not comparable to live animals. However, I think gel testing, along with durability testing, has value for comparing broadheads against other broadheads. Using a homogenous material, whether it's gel only, or sandwiched between other homogenous materials, offers a comparative value for broadheads. Having durability testing can help show the design and structural integrity of the broadheads, or reveal some of its weaknesses. If you're trying to simulate the behavior and performance of a broadhead on a live animal, then something similar to the "Paul Harrel meat target" would probably come the closest, and just like a live animal, you'd have a variety of outcomes due to the broadhead hitting different densities of material with possibly different number of blades. Again, this may or may not be of value to show you how a broadhead would perform on a live animal. The target is still not alive, and still does not move.
HA! You think anyone wants to know real answers. As noted in my video. When we see arrows hit animals, the performance is not consistent. Gel is almost 100% consistent. Why aren't they asking that? Because they don't want to know and the clickbait is real.
I agree that gel doesn't do much to test broadhead penetration, but to compare light vs heavy I think it works not bad. Often it shows that light fast arrows penetrate just as good as heavy. Mechanicals sure don't penetrate very good in animals but lots of light arrows go right through elk.
So, that's a MATH issue. The gel, itself, is very, very, consistent. It's designed that way. However that is a detriment to arrow "performance". It is very, very consistent. So.....speed comes up here. Heavy arrows are slower - so they hit with more force but the gel eats up the speed. Light arrows are light, they hit with less force, but go faster - so its an algebraic tradeoff. The funny thing is. If light, fast, arrows are indeed better, shouldn't they be a lot better, not just equivalent? The mechs are easy. The force of the blade angles in the gel shows how inefficient they are due to the blades angle of attack. Of all things, the lower performance of mechs in gel almost corresponds to exactly what we see on hunting videos. It's the closest (but not perfect) correlation. Because, hunting, Some mechs pass through or penetrate better or worse. But in Gel, they are quite consistent. Anytime you see very, very, consistent results, the question should be "why is it so consistent?" Not, "Ok, there ya go, they are consistent and we should see that hunting".......... Clearly that is not the case. You Tube has the hunting data set for all to see.
@@RanchFairy Thanks for the reply RF. I love the videos, especially the necropsy ones. I certainly wouldn't say light arrows penetrate better than heavy ones, but I think they often do pretty well with a proper broadhead. To be honest I think the reason there is minimal difference between light and heavy into ballistics gel, is because they both have about the same penetration. A given bow with different arrows should always make about the same KE. But some differences are: Heavy arrows almost always have is higher FOC. That's a big plus. They usually have a much stiffer spine also. That also has to help with penetration. Maybe slower flight allows them to get more stabilized before impact? There's also speed retention at longer ranges and that is a legit issue with light arrows. No arguments here, just conversation. More necropsies!
@@shanerRC Yeah, sure, no worries. I have videos on KE / Momentum and speed erosion for arrows from 388-715 grains at launch (constant KE across the set) BUT at 60 yards.....well, the math doesn't lie. Light arrows with proper broadheads work fine with proper shot placement. Kicker is, the animals move and people might make a mistake. So the intended POI and the actual POI can vary greatly. Bones never intended to be hit can be introduced to a perfectly "placed" arrow. Solid comment.
Only thing I find interesting abou the gel blocks is how some broadheads perform like garbage once the blades go 1-3in deep. No rotation, blades begin to close from their open positions, and other tom foolery from the gel. Really beats home the need to get a cut on contact with exceptionally solid build construction
I'm not convinced their even good for that. It's so grippy and dense they can't rotate and that amount of friction would close any mechanical one. I only use cut on contract fixed blades but even they won't rotate in gel but do in animals. I wish there was a way to test this better than dissection of animals that's easier to see.
I have daydreamed for years about gelatin testing arrows when the gelatin block and arrow are coated in vaseline lol. Like 3/8" thick vaseline on the front face of the block so the arrow gets buttered up as it hits lol
I’m confused. So are you concluding that gel blocks don’t reflect the difference in arrow builds or broadheads? I’m confused because gel blocks obviously are a lot denser then most animals hunted but who would not understand that gel is just used because of its consistency. Same gel is used to test a variety of bullets. Obviously it’s gonna go through a coyote but what the gel shows is the energy dump when and for how long. Same goes for arrows plus the twist rate on single bevel vs other single bevel. I’m just not sure what this is about.
If you measure broadhead penetration in the gel and plug it into this formula-- t = t0/(1-v2/c2)1/2. It will clearly demonstrate what the actual performance in a living animal will be. There is a reason the industry uses the gel for testing- it works great and they know this secret formula.
I've considered testing in a gel block to see rotation but now seeing images of arrows in blocks they wouldn't even be good for that. After watching many many gun channels shoot into gel and claim a round is crap then watch Paul Harrell shoot his meat target and get great results I've learned gel is limited in use, appears none at all for archery and only to show consistency in bullets. The meat target is real world or at least as close as possible for a controlled test. I wonder if there's a way to test broadhead/arrow combinations in a meat target that would allow for accurate rotation induced wound channels, that's what we want along with pass throughs.
recent vid so hopefully I can get an answer here. FOC calculations. To my mind when you do the real world balance point method you obviously have your inserts (that may be half outs') and a long broadhead on there. Most of the online calculators though, ask you for arrow length taken as nock throat to carbon. To me that is bollocks and it has the effect of exaggerating FOC%. How does Ranch Fairy measure FOC - is length taken as the actual real world arrow length of point to nock throat?
The ranch fairy realizes you’re right. I use one of the on line calculators and just use it as a baseline. Then if I change anything (say the calc shows me at 15% and I add 75 grains for some reason). Whatever it goes up, it’s fine. Your point is well taken. Perfect arrow flight Structural integrity Sharp broadheads Then FOC create lethality
Hydrostatic shock has more to do with liquid like bodily fluids. Stands to reason any nerves severed by the arrow will be damaged. I hunt with both high power rifle and arrow
I agree, gel does not give a true indication of penetration. I recently watched a video where Rob Allen tested penetration of speargun shafts with a tri cut tip vs conical tip and the results weren't accurate and even he said balistics gel was the wrong medium to use for penetration testing.
It’s consistent with all just needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It’s just one method of gauging performance…. You can’t tell me shooting through dead bones without blood and guts is a consistent test(preferably without the guts lol) I don’t need to tell you Like with muscles bones have different density which creates inconsistency for any sort of test other than whether it causes damages on a shit Broadhead … even testing broadheads into brand-new 3-D targets can tell you the advantages over one Broadhead to the other single bevel in my testing has penetrated further. Then, with living in Australia, you can put it to test shooting five or six critters a day.
I made this point. The fact that the results are consistent is the reason its a terrible test. If people would CLARIFY, the results are in ballistic gel and have no correlation to other test materials. I am fine with that. But alas, clickbait, views, and 100% misunderstanding of the results allows the audience to believe they will see the same results hunting. Watch arrow performance on hunting videos. Tell me where the consistency is almost 100%.
My best test results was with targets. Yes they are meant to stop projectiles so if you aim (pun intended) to see arrow effects go from light, medium, and heavy. When you get 3-4 inch penetration than penetration to half the shaft and then a damn near pass through on whatever material these block targets are you see real tests. Make sure its new so you don’t have the bias of oh its worn out. Do that from 10-50 yards and 560 ish is the same results from 20-50 1-2 inches of fletchings keep me from losing arrows and bolts. There is no way an animal that is not meant to stop these things will stop them. Crossbow target excalibur block target. Darn near full pass through brand new 50 lb bow 563 grains 50 yards. Crossbow 200 lb 564 grains damn near pass through 50 yards. The arrow was about half way out the other side the bolt i could just see some of the vanes poking through. One was mechanical one was fixed it didn’t make a difference target the Did its job and i did mine as an archer. Beat the object meant to stop me. And the target kept me from losing arrows and bolts hahahaha. As for your questions Troy because the purple release and green riser clearly makes all broadheads penetrate gel the deepest. Seriously the gel tests look cool though especially to see a wound channel and what not but no the only thing that compares to animals is animals. Some really good simulators for timing of deer drop and such though is around. Again its not consistent though or rather too consistent for hunting applications.
Hey troy got a ? For ya So if there where a good broadhead out there ,.i could use a 450 gr arrow a still get the same penatratoin as a 600 gr arrow with a regular muzzy
So it becomes physics. Arrows always slow down in flight (the lighter arrow slows down faster). But mass never leaves the arrow system or a baseball vs a lead ball or a 125 grain bullet vs 200 grain bullet. So heavier objects have more inertia, physics. For a 450 grain arrow - to increase penetration on that arrow compared to a muzzy. Id get a Magnus Stinger buzzcut - 4 blade. Its cut on contact. So it will improve the 450. But there's no comparison to 150 grains more mass on the same broadhead. If arrow flight is not maintained or your arrows are inconsistent across the whole set of arrows, none of this matters! fun huh!
It’s because ballistic gel is formulated to replicate bullet performance in tissue. An 80 pound speed bow produces less than 1/10th the velocity and maybe 1/300th the energy of a standard deer rifle. So arrows rely on momentum and the sharpness of the edge to penetrate and create damage. The arrow is so long and the friction in the gel is way too high to replicate real tissue. In a real animal the only substantial point of friction is the edge of the blades unless you have a oddly shaped/blunt ferrule or a mechanical with extra stuff going on.
What I really love is a guy will shoot broadhead A into a gel block and it penetrates 7 1/2”. Then shoots same broadhead A into cardboard and it penetrates 55 layers. Next broadhead B will go into the gel 8”. But broadhead B only penetrates the cardboard 48 layers. Where is the correlation?😂 It happens time and time again but they keep performing these same tests lol. It kills me 😂
The bow hunters that reached their prime in the mid 2000s and 2010s using mechanicals and 400gr arrows hate you. I love it. Everytime I talk to someone at the range or shop they hate your teachings. I love it! Makes me want to run heavy high foc even more
Thank you
Yep. I get snarky ass comments from guys at my shop and when I shoot sometimes on the range. I got lucky and started off with high FOC hand loads, never even owed a flapper or twizzler. But I've also bugged RF A LOT via email. And he ALWAYS replies, regardless of how dumb the question may be. :)
Troy,
I’m excited for you and THP + Rocket Man to get together for summer! I love the videos and podcasts from the last few summers.
Dr. Ashby and his study is definitely amazing. You turned me onto them several years ago- thank you.
I truly believe, until someone loses a nice animal/buck due to lack of penetration, they will continue to follow bow shops who promote speed.
I’m here in WV and there’s a lot of bow hunters. Each bow shop owner I talk to thinks heavy arrows and tuffhead broadheads are unnecessary. Oh well.
Thanks RF!
I like that you challenge the accepted theory’s in bow hunting. Keep doing what you do
You know what really makes me mad about this channel? I've been coming here for years with every intention of arguing,,but after a few minutes of watching , I find myself agreeing with you!! You've got me abandoning my precious "flapper" heads for fixed blades, I'm looking at heavier arrows, and God help me,,I'm even considering single bevels!
Hey man, when it makes sense, it makes sense. It drives me nuts when I see other people bashing him on there channels and he is just trying to help and has never singled anyone out for anything. Like why must we be petty.
You will like the results of single bevel heads.
Cause you are waking up to the facts
You won’t be disappointed
Im starting to go down the ravine hole and i feel dumb I didn’t do it sooner makes so much sense since i started watching him
You’ve helped me greatly! When I first started hunting I used mechanicals because they shot better. Then I learned about tuning bow and arrows. I went from seeing deer running away with half my arrow sticking out of them, to having pass through shots. But the commercials for those mechanicals showed them going furthest into ballistic gel….. Thanks and keep up the great content
Gel and foam targets are designed to create friction and stop stuff. Drives me crazy that people think that shit is legit
It's a shame this type of content doesn't reach more bowhunters. People think just because channels have a large following they need to take the content as gospel. Keep the common sense coming RF🎉
Plugging away
You ever test Ace broadheads Troy?
It is still just amazing/frustrating to me that people won’t just try. Thank you R.F., Dr. Ashby, & the Rocket Man Barnette!
AND THANK YOU RANCH FAIRY!
Thank you for confirming my suspicion. I knew something was up when I was watching some gel tests of a broadhead I was curious about a couple years ago. 2 and 3 blade non vented solid heads were getting "out penetrated" by mechanical's and just about every vented fixed head in ballistic gel. In some cases this was by a pretty wide margin. The head I was curious about in particular was doing especially poor. I thought there was no way in hell a solid, sharp, solid 3 blade with a reasonable blade angle would lose out to some chopper head in a real animal...The gel is a friction machine. The more surface area on an arrow the quicker the gel stops it. Non vented heads have more surface area and depending on ferrule design don't open up a path to create less friction for the shaft. My theory anyway. Like you said, this doesn't represent real life at all. I take those videos with a grain of salt. I like Lusk's because of his accuracy, durability, and edge retention tests.
I had many of the same suspicions.
Yeah it was made exclusively for stopping bullets I mean most people if they look closely at where the jell stopped the head it has such a friction on it the arrow tip actually backs out a little bit from it stopped
Hell, I admit it... I NEVER even thought about the blocks that way.... There was one video that made me think "Something does not seem quite right with this test....".
I had a strong suspicion that ballistic gel gripped the arrow shaft too much, but holy cow I had no idea it was THAT grippy!! That totally explains why two blade heads rarely outperform 3 and 4 blade heads in gel, they don’t pulverize the gel with enough cuts to lessen its grip on the arrow shaft. I can see why the QAD Exodus does so well in those tests: that big chisel tip punches a hole through the gel for the shaft to slide through.
100% correct.
Don’t you think it’s doing the exact same thing in an animal? That’s the reason micro shafts penetrate father than standard diameters.
@@jaronwhite2491
Animals aren't grippy. Next time you clean a deer just take 5 minutes to feel how soft the internal organs actually are.
Then look at how THIN the ribcage actually is. If you've had a gel block in hand, its quite disturbing compared the actual animal parts.
On the micros, sure, less surface area in a grippy medium. Easy peasy, agreed, in gel. Hunting Arrows have broadheads and meat tends to open up when cut. Blood lubricates, etc. Not really an issue "on meat". Perfect arrow flight and broadheads that don't flex or dull on impact are much more important - hunting.
A good friend of mine we where talking about this type of testing awhile back and thinking why we are watching this, and accepting the type of methods instead of our own experiences on our hunting seasons before ,this video is needed thank you good hunting everyone.
Have you ever thought of shooting the Paul Harrell Meat target? It is an analog for an animal. Paul had many videos where he shoots the meat target with various ammo brands, then digs the bullets out and offers his opinion on their performance. The same could be done with broadheads.
That might be acceptable.
At least Paul's target contains actual meat and bone.
Another great video! I used rage broadheads before I started watching your videos and had terrible results. Last season I made some arrows using the principles taught in your video and had my first pass through on a deer, and I saw it go down! Thanks for these videos! I've learned a lot and single bevel broad heads rock!
Glad I could help!! Send me pictures on insta!!!
Spot on. You can't use a medium that's designed to stop a projectile in order to test penetration on a living animal.
Sadly I don't think many people realize how many handgun calibers would stop in a block this size. They also must not realize that the diaphragm of pretty much any living thing has some air in it as well..
Maybe testing balls of projectiles for crime scenes is the intended use of Ballistic Gel. But using the medium of animal hide, flesh & bone might not be good enough. Ever had to makes cuts on a deer carcass with a knife that dulls easily compared to one made of superior steel? When u do u find out that to have structural integrity u 1st need that & the 2nd thing u need is design. I have a 30 yr old beaver knife that has a wood handle. It is by far better @ edge retention than anything I've owned. It has a round tip that is more like a spatula. By far the best fleshing knife I've ever owned. I used to clean skin beavers with it for it & never needed a fleshing beam to do it. It's pretty much a knife that still makes smooth thin slices from apples that I feed to animals on the farm. Probably has better edge retention than half the heads on the market. ❤
Damn good point. Probably because of the constant friction applied by the gel and animals are not consistent.
Great video and great way to show how grippy the block is. (And how to show it on a video) Never would of thought of that. Keep it up and keep having fun.
I’ve wondered this myself. Thanks for putting this info out there.
I appreciate that you question the archery industry- anyone that gets sensitive about should ask themselves why
Excellent comment
I’ve always felt this way. Too much drag to get an accurate representation of arrow/ broadhead penetration. Thank you for clearing it up and also good on you for the anti bashing. Too many keyboard warriors out there.
RF next you can enlighten everyone that shooting dry bones doesn’t replicate bones in a live animal. It’s almost like Dr. Ed figured this out years ago.
That's a fantastic coffee cup sir! There's more than just broadhead truth happening here. 👍🏻
I think there is a place for the gel when trying to measure some details, as long as they are not using it to compare to "meat". it is a consistent medium, therefor there can be some information extrapolated from shooting it, but I do agree that it does not give "lifelike" medium results. Thanks as always for the video Troy.
Youre damned reasonable for commenting on my Channel!!!!
@@RanchFairy Just honest. Wish I could do as much "field testing" as you guys! Thank you Troy.
Always keepin it real RF 🤟Thank you!
Hey Troy, I do have to say that your right about ballistic gels that they are not a great tool for testing penetration. I do believe that the average archery consumer is miss using ballistic gels over all. Instead of using them for penetration they should be using them to see what the broad head is doing inside the animal. If someone was to use a ballistic dummy instead vs a block that would simulate a more realistic test. But again that’s still seeing what the wound channel is and may not be a very accurate measurement of penetration. Anyways just some food for thought and really enjoy the videos please keep them coming!
I think there is something we all can learn from shooting gel blocks in the videos other than pure penetration , it’s the wound channel these broad heads make or don’t make for that matter . Still prefer your necropsy tests on the pigs over any gel test . Keep up the great content.
I agree 100% with the concept about penetration tests in jell compared to animals my question is do you think that it is a fair test as far as what broadhead arrow combination penetrates the best in general which could possibly apply on animals too I don’t know and am just asking your opinion
No.
Field points or broadheads its the same.
On you tube we see a pile of broadhead and gel tests on the internet. NOTHING really out performs anything.
Every Arrow penetrates about half way.
100% is a tough number when we don't see some random broadhead pass through while others don't. BUT watch hunting videos and the arrow penetration varies widely.
Analyzing wound channels is probably decent data. However, this assumes the broadhead will be highly effective to actually penetrate on animals (per my comment above about hunting videos). Another challenge, gel and foam do not have any exterior hard or variable density substrates (ribs, thick skin, shield on pigs, shoulder meat is pretty thick on big deer and elk, etc.)
Finally, the gel and foam are usually perfectly flat and all arrows hit at 90 degrees which allows higher performance for all platforms. Animals are not Minecraft. They are quite round, bones are round and variable thickness depending upon where they attach to the next bone, ribcage is NOT flat, quartering shots, etc.
Thanks I suspected that to be the answer and yes I watch hundreds of archery hunting videos and agree with your statements I mostly bow hunt and am switching to traditional but will still use my compound occasionally I’ve never shot into jell so I was curious if it in any way simulated a accurate penetration example on a animal I appreciate your honesty and your response have a great day
It amazes me people still debate sharpe fixed heads and “heavy” arrows vs “light” arrows and mechanical. The fixed heads and heavier arrows out perform light in my experience. I’ve had both.
Just started bow hunting last yr. I’ve only shot 1 doe & it was a clean pass thru.
Ranch Fairy 🧚♀️ ! I happen to be rather talented at missing however, I only miss when the shot really matters and I watch helplessly as my arrow sails beautifully over the back of what had to be the most amazing Buck that ever walked the backwoods of Putnam County New York! Gone forever! 🏹🏹🦌🦌👍😎😮😮😮😮😮😮😮
You and me bud!!!
Perhaps watching body confirmation could help with that. A deer isn't flat & the body is rounded. I've found shooting & practicing more from a tree prepares me better for the real thing. None of my targets r broadside. It makes a big difference with brain memory.
I want to thank you RF. My 660 grain 250spine 200gr VPA single bevels 123 grain inserts flying like darts . Bear Adapt bow is so quite .All thanks to you
I would like to see you test something like Paul Harrell's "meat target" with arrows. It would be somewhat redundant since you have pigs to use. But it could give great insight while letting you control certain variables (like angle of impact, bone density, etc.) that are almost impossible to achieve repeatedly with living targets. Especially since pigs never stop moving. It could even give you a chance to catch the arrows on exit to see what damage the bones did to the broadhead without them going into rocks and dirt.
If you know Paul, I'd love to talk with him.
@RanchFairy I wish I did. Lol He's brought a different perspective to the gun community much the way you have in the bow community. If it weren't for you, I never would've heard about Ed Ashby. And I probably wouldn't have picked up a bow. I looked at it because of the THP guys. But it was your and Ed's work that helped me get enough confidence in my setup to take the shots.
Good stuff! Field testing don’t lie 💪🏹🐗🦌
The FBI used organic gel to compare handgun rounds to each other. I believe it is made to simulate muscle tissue only. It actually works well with bullets as it shows various wound tracks and tissue disruption. With arrows, not so much. The clear ballistic gel most are using for these arrow tests, is a little different. I like watching all testing, and use all this info to make informed choices. That said I have seen broadheads do some really crazy things in animals! Gel testing I find to be the least informative, unless there is some type of durability testing to go along with it. Heads that have reasonable cutting surface and hold together under extreme impact conditions penetrate best. Just like a bullet those that don't expand penetrate the deepest all things being identical. A broadhead that falls apart or "expands" uses a lot of energy in the process. You know what works becuase you have shot lots of animals. I know what works for the same reason. That said I follow one broadhead testing channel because he uses a lot of different materials to shoot heads into. They don't tell us what the head will do in an animal, only how the heads compare to one another. I then use that information along with what I know from my own experience as well as people like yourself to pick heads to hunt with. The bigger and tougher the animal the more important broadhead integrity is. Sharpness is something that should never be compromised. Gel looks good on camera, but really doesn't tell us much all alone .
Excellent.
100% agree, how can every single arrow and broadhead shot into a medium be almost the same result every time and be a realistic outcome, the answer is that it cannot and should not be the test material of choice. The testing of arrow and broadhead on a downed animal directly after a kill is the only test I would deem a realistic result since it is the actual thing you are spending all the time in the off season and season intending to put the arrow through. Thank you ranch fairy and the Ashby foundation and of course Dr Ashby. Will be purchasing the single bevel rf tuffheads in the next couple days.
You got me in a dark hole lol. Everyone at the pro shops think I'm crazy with the arrow setups. Im currently waiting on my vulcan RF EDITION arrows an the 200 grain sb broadheads.
I 100% agree. I think we need to see a controlled medium in which to test the various components. What that is, I do not know.
Great video. The past few years I've thought about the same thing.
Yeah there is one channel that uses these tests and he does a great job but like you there is nothing that simulates flesh and bone like flesh and bone. I did a couple videos using a deer scapula and a upper cow femur just to see what would happen they were not great😂 but I had fun and I learned a lot. Especially not all Broadheads are created equal. Even fix blades. Great stuff sir
Maybe you could develop a layered target that better simulates an animal. Maybe thin hide, bone simulation, thin layer of gel, open foam space then the reverse for the exit side.
He already tests on live animals. There is no better proving ground than meat hanging from the pole.
@@ghostrider846exactly my thoughts
@@ghostrider846 I know but I mean for side by side testing through controlled media that acts more like real world.
Point we'll made
I gotta say man, I’d love to see what you would come up with for the most realistic synthetic test target for broad heads. Love your content!
Doesn't exist yet. I FEAR someone will come up with something......call it "the next great thing" BUT not validate it against animal / "on meat" performance.
Love it. Keep the videos rolling
Thank you very much for all your videos they are brilliant. Very entertaining and information is brilliant. 👍👍🇺🇲👍🇬🇧👍
Love to watch this channel and how knowledgeable Troy is regarding all aspects of Archery. I agree that gell or cardboard does not realistically replicate the body of a deer. I think that these guys use gell as it will stop arrows and show you which ones penetrate the best through an inanimate object (not trying to replicate deer here). Then we can make decisions on which broadhead to use for our deer hunting. If they used a target which all or most broadheads blow through then it would defeat the purpose of the test comparison. Troy, does this make sense?
Other than actual animal carcass, I'd be curious to see arrows used on a Paul Harrell style "meat target". You do great work, thanks.
RF- totally understand and respect the heavy FOC and "adult arrow" concept... BUT i think your assumption is "Misleading". I don't think that people who are shooting into gel or cardboard believe that it represents a live animal. It is just a consistent way to measure performance- not to mention its a great way to see the wound channel. When performing a good test, you need to have a consistent way to measure your results. You can't get that with an animal that has different muscle mass and bone thickness, thus the consistent gel. I've been following you for a while and do believe that heavier fixed blades perform better for hunting. Keep the content coming.
I was going to say the same thing. It's just a way for people to compare broadhead/arrow performance on an even playing field.
I would die to hear a podcast with troy and john lusk.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’d think the ballistics gel would only test Ke. Which is why shooting the same weight arrow with different but same weight broadheads will give you pretty similar results. Id like to see what different weights could do to the gel
Thank you!
Soooo tired of seeing those tests as well.
I have to admit though, I do click on one of those videos every once in a while for a laugh.😂
Great video I've always said the gel blocks aren't a good real life representation the only reason I like to see those tests is so I can see what the cuts look like the depth they go in is a moot point cuz they all stop within an inch of each other
Ha! Love it kinda getting nice with old age! Thanks for the knot!(fishing just does something different)
I started bow archery journey in the self bows community, making my own bows, arrows, stone points, etc. But 8-9 years ago, I read the Ashby reports and saw some videos of Dr. Ashby talking/demonstrating some of the principles of physics that determine arrow performance. The science that he talked about then made sense, and I've been a proponent of the heavy arrow solid broadhead theory for years. I mean if I can shoot an arrow that is going 150 fps and blow through deer, elk, or moose, and heavy bones, why then do I watch compound shooters nail an elk in the shoulder and only get 3 to 5 inches penetration? The compound shooters arrows are going at least double my arrow speed, but they stop on the shoulder. I like to plan for plan b. Thanks for your consent.
I need some help/advice from anyone watching. Im about to order a ranch fairy bareshaft test kit but not sure what spine. I shoot. 27in arrow at 57-60lbs. I was going to do the 250/300 but wondering if I need to get the 300/350… every dumb spine chart says 400 but I know that’s too high. Let me know!
I'd go with 250/300. I shoot a Mathews Z3 at 60lbs 28.5 inches. The 250/300 kit worked for me nicely. Bow was bareshafting nicely with 100gr inserts, and a 200gr head, 250 spine.
@@Agridefense I went with Easton axis 340 spine, 100 grain half out insert by ethics, 125 vpa single bevel and a nockturnal nock. Two bucks so far. One went through the shoulder no problem and deer died 15 yards. Other one I forgot my quiver and had a dull practice broadhead… pass through, deer went 75 yards. Love this setup! I did try 300 spine bareshaft but 340 were darts
Ever since watching this is giggle at channels when they do this cuz I shows how little they know about how things work.
I shoot high foc arrows with sharp single bevels. They kill stuff real good. I don't know why people try to argue it.
Ballistic gel is used for consistency not replicating animal tissue. You can kill anything with a field point if you put it the same place as you should with a broadhead.
@RanchFairy here's my question if you can shoot an arrow set at a fixed distance into a pressure sensing device and get a data set of those arrows energy at that distance just shooting through the atmosphere, then repeat the process only this time using fresh killed pigs in front of the sensor far enough away to record the energy loss after the pass through, would that not be a legitimate representation of the amount of kinetic energy and momentum lost ?
Wouldn't this solve some of the issues of "not being able to guage that left over energy that you can't gauge once the arrow leaves the animal" as Dr. Ashby says. If for example arrow A hits at 45 ft lbs in an unimpeded flight then arrow A hits after the pass through at say 22 ft lbs isn't fair to say that we know that arrow A lost 23 ft lbs of energy. Now repeat the tests with the various FOC arrows and gauge the data sets. Ofcourse every pig is different but the variables can be reduced to the point where your data is now easily bracketed and therefore reliably more realistic?
I'm sure there is a legitimate way to perform this. Maybe you have not looked at it from this perspective or you have and I'm just crazy lol or not 😎
Honestly this question should answer itself. Ballistic gel was made to drink up kinetic energy from bullets, so it's a good test for bullets.
But does anybody out there think any broadhead on the market would have any trouble penetrating a pile of inflated lungs? Obviously not. So what is the problem? Well the problem is the lungs are covered with dirt, hair, hide, muscle, bone, and muscle. So any test of an arrow has got to go through that FIRST, and then something as soft as lungs. Could be water ballons!
That's it. If you can blow through hide, dirt, hair, muscle and bone, you're not gonna have any trouble with the lungs! (Maybe with the vasculature. Like t
Troy says, arteries can be tough.
Well guess who's done that? His name rhymes with Proctor Fred Slashby, and it does not matter that his test medium was not homogenous, because it's sample size is gigantic.
Keep it up, Troy!
New tshirt slogan: "Shoot adult arrows, get a girlfriend." Send me one as for creative royalties 😆
Where's the link to The Great Awakening Hunter's Blend coffee and mug?
I use John Lusk's channel as a starting point to analyze cut on contact (CoC) broadheads. He does perform consistent tests on broadheads which I do like. I found out about the Wedge Heads (WHs) from his channel. The channel gives me good information on durability and sharpness.
After using some different broadheads, the Magnus Black Hornet broadhead are just not that durable for me due to the aluminum ferrule that breaks/bends too easily. I moved over to the WHs and TuffHead (TH) Evolutions 2.0 which are much more durable.
I agree that the ballistic gel penetration test is not indicative of animal penetration. It looks cool but does it accurately represent animal penetration? Looks like the answer in "No". For example, if a WH penetrates 6" and a TH penetrates 7" into gel block then so what? They will both go through an animal.
Maybe the answer is building a composite block (carpet/plywood/foam/plywood/carpet) target and then shooting through it into a force/impact gauge on the other side to capture the loss of momentum.
LOOKING GOOD BROTHER!
What would happen if you put a couple of inches of ballistic gel on either side of a water jug
Can you do some testing with the sevr 1.5 on pigs to see how they do?
Would it be a better test to use a gel bock at the thickness of the thoracic wall, then an air gap, then another block with the same wall thickness? This may prove the energy carried by a heavy arrow. I believe the adult arrow. I built a 525g arrow with 22%foc arrow coming off the bow at 277fps, and it flys better and penetrats great. So good, I used it in indoor league and was shooting through the target butt and hitting the wall behind it.
I seriously felt stupid to have given credibility to gel blocks. As usually (not always) you're right! But you ain't right lol
At least you admit this is a dictatorship. The cool thing is it's not tyrannical, it's peaceful and you do allow open discourse. I see the wisdom in not wanting people's names or channels brought up because it's very easy to think that the gel tells us which one delivers the best end result.
Please don't delete the comment if someone is taking credit for their own video that you screenshot, because someone that's willing to admit they didn't know or hadn't thought outside of that box, is worthy to be recognized.
Thanks Troy. You're awesome
Good comment. Yeah, I try to not slam other YT'ers who honestly are putting in a ton of work. They may or may not know the results and "why" they are getting them. So it's not fair to say they are intentionally misleading people.
But there are some folks selling broadheads and "magic" arrows, fletching, etc. who will claim, clearly, that their magic invention directly correlates to animal penetration.
The dictator will not allow for the intended misinformation.
Archer’s Bowhunters and folks who use sharp sticks! Pay attention! 🦌🏹
This topic (broadheads/ballistic gel) is how I ended up watching this video. It just didn't make sense to me why gel would be used as a close medium to simulate a med-large game cavity.
Gel blocks constrict on the arrow shaft, preventing penetration.
Through all of your test scenarios, have you tested the effect a light draw weight has on arrow flight and foc? I'm asking for myself. I suffer from an elbow injury from a car wreck last and have not been able draw full weight yet.
I did a series "youth bow project Dik DiK" it's one of my playlists. 43#/26" draw bow.
Good video Todd.
As you've pointed out, gel testing is not comparable to live animals. However, I think gel testing, along with durability testing, has value for comparing broadheads against other broadheads. Using a homogenous material, whether it's gel only, or sandwiched between other homogenous materials, offers a comparative value for broadheads. Having durability testing can help show the design and structural integrity of the broadheads, or reveal some of its weaknesses.
If you're trying to simulate the behavior and performance of a broadhead on a live animal, then something similar to the "Paul Harrel meat target" would probably come the closest, and just like a live animal, you'd have a variety of outcomes due to the broadhead hitting different densities of material with possibly different number of blades. Again, this may or may not be of value to show you how a broadhead would perform on a live animal. The target is still not alive, and still does not move.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any of those videos shoot a field point into the block as a control group to compare the penetration.
HA! You think anyone wants to know real answers. As noted in my video. When we see arrows hit animals, the performance is not consistent. Gel is almost 100% consistent.
Why aren't they asking that?
Because they don't want to know and the clickbait is real.
Proud donor to the Ashby foundation here
as homogenous as the gel is, would it maybe be a better target than a foam target for the purposes of bare shaft tuning?
I have shot gel but never to check penetration i only wanted to see the shape of the wound channel to compare it to other broadheads.
How would lubrication effect an arrow going into a jell block. Should go deeper.
I've been saying this forever, ballistic gel is good for 1 thing. Ballistics with firearm projectile testing to look at cavitation.... dassit
I agree that gel doesn't do much to test broadhead penetration, but to compare light vs heavy I think it works not bad. Often it shows that light fast arrows penetrate just as good as heavy. Mechanicals sure don't penetrate very good in animals but lots of light arrows go right through elk.
So, that's a MATH issue. The gel, itself, is very, very, consistent. It's designed that way. However that is a detriment to arrow "performance". It is very, very consistent.
So.....speed comes up here.
Heavy arrows are slower - so they hit with more force but the gel eats up the speed.
Light arrows are light, they hit with less force, but go faster - so its an algebraic tradeoff.
The funny thing is. If light, fast, arrows are indeed better, shouldn't they be a lot better, not just equivalent?
The mechs are easy. The force of the blade angles in the gel shows how inefficient they are due to the blades angle of attack. Of all things, the lower performance of mechs in gel almost corresponds to exactly what we see on hunting videos. It's the closest (but not perfect) correlation. Because, hunting, Some mechs pass through or penetrate better or worse. But in Gel, they are quite consistent. Anytime you see very, very, consistent results, the question should be "why is it so consistent?" Not, "Ok, there ya go, they are consistent and we should see that hunting"..........
Clearly that is not the case. You Tube has the hunting data set for all to see.
@@RanchFairy Thanks for the reply RF. I love the videos, especially the necropsy ones. I certainly wouldn't say light arrows penetrate better than heavy ones, but I think they often do pretty well with a proper broadhead. To be honest I think the reason there is minimal difference between light and heavy into ballistics gel, is because they both have about the same penetration. A given bow with different arrows should always make about the same KE. But some differences are: Heavy arrows almost always have is higher FOC. That's a big plus. They usually have a much stiffer spine also. That also has to help with penetration. Maybe slower flight allows them to get more stabilized before impact? There's also speed retention at longer ranges and that is a legit issue with light arrows. No arguments here, just conversation. More necropsies!
@@shanerRC Yeah, sure, no worries.
I have videos on KE / Momentum and speed erosion for arrows from 388-715 grains at launch (constant KE across the set) BUT at 60 yards.....well, the math doesn't lie.
Light arrows with proper broadheads work fine with proper shot placement. Kicker is, the animals move and people might make a mistake. So the intended POI and the actual POI can vary greatly. Bones never intended to be hit can be introduced to a perfectly "placed" arrow.
Solid comment.
Id like to see what lubeing yer shaft does.....
Only thing I find interesting abou the gel blocks is how some broadheads perform like garbage once the blades go 1-3in deep. No rotation, blades begin to close from their open positions, and other tom foolery from the gel.
Really beats home the need to get a cut on contact with exceptionally solid build construction
I'm not convinced their even good for that. It's so grippy and dense they can't rotate and that amount of friction would close any mechanical one.
I only use cut on contract fixed blades but even they won't rotate in gel but do in animals. I wish there was a way to test this better than dissection of animals that's easier to see.
I have daydreamed for years about gelatin testing arrows when the gelatin block and arrow are coated in vaseline lol. Like 3/8" thick vaseline on the front face of the block so the arrow gets buttered up as it hits lol
I’m confused. So are you concluding that gel blocks don’t reflect the difference in arrow builds or broadheads? I’m confused because gel blocks obviously are a lot denser then most animals hunted but who would not understand that gel is just used because of its consistency. Same gel is used to test a variety of bullets. Obviously it’s gonna go through a coyote but what the gel shows is the energy dump when and for how long. Same goes for arrows plus the twist rate on single bevel vs other single bevel. I’m just not sure what this is about.
If you measure broadhead penetration in the gel and plug it into this formula-- t = t0/(1-v2/c2)1/2. It will clearly demonstrate what the actual performance in a living animal will be. There is a reason the industry uses the gel for testing- it works great and they know this secret formula.
I have no idea how to respond to that. But I detect sarcasm.
I thought the equation was
P=(-bs/1vFOC_POI*.345)v2
I've considered testing in a gel block to see rotation but now seeing images of arrows in blocks they wouldn't even be good for that.
After watching many many gun channels shoot into gel and claim a round is crap then watch Paul Harrell shoot his meat target and get great results I've learned gel is limited in use, appears none at all for archery and only to show consistency in bullets. The meat target is real world or at least as close as possible for a controlled test. I wonder if there's a way to test broadhead/arrow combinations in a meat target that would allow for accurate rotation induced wound channels, that's what we want along with pass throughs.
recent vid so hopefully I can get an answer here. FOC calculations. To my mind when you do the real world balance point method you obviously have your inserts (that may be half outs') and a long broadhead on there. Most of the online calculators though, ask you for arrow length taken as nock throat to carbon. To me that is bollocks and it has the effect of exaggerating FOC%. How does Ranch Fairy measure FOC - is length taken as the actual real world arrow length of point to nock throat?
The ranch fairy realizes you’re right. I use one of the on line calculators and just use it as a baseline. Then if I change anything (say the calc shows me at 15% and I add 75 grains for some reason). Whatever it goes up, it’s fine. Your point is well taken.
Perfect arrow flight
Structural integrity
Sharp broadheads
Then FOC create lethality
😆🤣😂 You Killed me Brother
Question: Can an arrow cause hydrostatic shock?
Shoot a full can of beer, see if it explodes
@@davidcampbell2661 Unless a can of beer can suffer from nerve damage…I think you need to read the theory behind hydrostatic shock.
Hydrostatic shock has more to do with liquid like bodily fluids. Stands to reason any nerves severed by the arrow will be damaged. I hunt with both high power rifle and arrow
I agree, gel does not give a true indication of penetration. I recently watched a video where Rob Allen tested penetration of speargun shafts with a tri cut tip vs conical tip and the results weren't accurate and even he said balistics gel was the wrong medium to use for penetration testing.
Yes, ballistic gel has drag on the arrow shaft but it is consistent with all broadheads tested ,
It’s consistent with all just needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It’s just one method of gauging performance…. You can’t tell me shooting through dead bones without blood and guts is a consistent test(preferably without the guts lol) I don’t need to tell you Like with muscles bones have different density which creates inconsistency for any sort of test other than whether it causes damages on a shit Broadhead … even testing broadheads into brand-new 3-D targets can tell you the advantages over one Broadhead to the other single bevel in my testing has penetrated further. Then, with living in Australia, you can put it to test shooting five or six critters a day.
I made this point.
The fact that the results are consistent is the reason its a terrible test.
If people would CLARIFY, the results are in ballistic gel and have no correlation to other test materials.
I am fine with that. But alas, clickbait, views, and 100% misunderstanding of the results allows the audience to believe they will see the same results hunting.
Watch arrow performance on hunting videos. Tell me where the consistency is almost 100%.
My best test results was with targets.
Yes they are meant to stop projectiles so if you aim (pun intended) to see arrow effects go from light, medium, and heavy. When you get 3-4 inch penetration than penetration to half the shaft and then a damn near pass through on whatever material these block targets are you see real tests. Make sure its new so you don’t have the bias of oh its worn out. Do that from 10-50 yards and 560 ish is the same results from 20-50 1-2 inches of fletchings keep me from losing arrows and bolts.
There is no way an animal that is not meant to stop these things will stop them.
Crossbow target excalibur block target.
Darn near full pass through brand new 50 lb bow 563 grains 50 yards.
Crossbow 200 lb 564 grains damn near pass through 50 yards.
The arrow was about half way out the other side the bolt i could just see some of the vanes poking through. One was mechanical one was fixed it didn’t make a difference target the
Did its job and i did mine as an archer. Beat the object meant to stop me. And the target kept me from losing arrows and bolts hahahaha.
As for your questions Troy because the purple release and green riser clearly makes all broadheads penetrate gel the deepest.
Seriously the gel tests look cool though especially to see a wound channel and what not but no the only thing that compares to animals is animals. Some really good simulators for timing of deer drop and such though is around.
Again its not consistent though or rather too consistent for hunting applications.
Do you have any impact results from Broadhead hitting a target😜
@@GaryClanton
Maybe - even a dumpster and a telephone pole too
I have a broadhead review coming soon.
I have also kindly questioned the authenticity of ballistic gel block testing, because the varaibles of animals are completely different.
Hey troy got a ? For ya
So if there where a good broadhead out there
,.i could use a 450 gr arrow a still get the same penatratoin as a 600 gr arrow with a regular muzzy
?
So it becomes physics.
Arrows always slow down in flight (the lighter arrow slows down faster). But mass never leaves the arrow system or a baseball vs a lead ball or a 125 grain bullet vs 200 grain bullet. So heavier objects have more inertia, physics.
For a 450 grain arrow - to increase penetration on that arrow compared to a muzzy. Id get a Magnus Stinger buzzcut - 4 blade. Its cut on contact. So it will improve the 450. But there's no comparison to 150 grains more mass on the same broadhead.
If arrow flight is not maintained or your arrows are inconsistent across the whole set of arrows, none of this matters! fun huh!
A deer is about 10 or 12 inches thick where you should be shooting them and a ballistic gell block is 16 inchs thick so right there is more drag.
Like the Thomas Sowell quote.
"Shoot more drywall."
-Brick
It’s because ballistic gel is formulated to replicate bullet performance in tissue. An 80 pound speed bow produces less than 1/10th the velocity and maybe 1/300th the energy of a standard deer rifle. So arrows rely on momentum and the sharpness of the edge to penetrate and create damage.
The arrow is so long and the friction in the gel is way too high to replicate real tissue. In a real animal the only substantial point of friction is the edge of the blades unless you have a oddly shaped/blunt ferrule or a mechanical with extra stuff going on.
What I really love is a guy will shoot broadhead A into a gel block and it penetrates 7 1/2”. Then shoots same broadhead A into cardboard and it penetrates 55 layers.
Next broadhead B will go into the gel 8”. But broadhead B only penetrates the cardboard 48 layers. Where is the correlation?😂
It happens time and time again but they keep performing these same tests lol. It kills me 😂