Hunting Washington Forum

Big Game Hunting => Bow Hunting => Topic started by: Nice Racks on August 07, 2014, 10:35:55 PM

Title: Which is Better?
Post by: Nice Racks on August 07, 2014, 10:35:55 PM: I didn't want to thread jack a different topic, so I started this one. It seems that most people (including myself) desire a complete pass through on an animal when shooting them with an arrow. My question is: Can an arrow that doesn't pass through, but had enough penetration to get into the chest cavity end up having a quicker kill? It seems as it will cause more internal damage as the animal is running off going as fast as it can.
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: bowjunkie on August 08, 2014, 08:30:12 AM: pass through better in my opinion arrows cause damage by cutting not by shock like a bullet plus a much better blood trail.
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: grundy53 on August 08, 2014, 08:40:39 AM: In my opinion two holes are better then one.

sent from my typewriter
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: bearpaw on August 08, 2014, 08:51:16 AM: I think the recovery efforts are more successful with pass through hits, the extra blood on the trail most definitely helps. :twocents:
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: yajsab on August 08, 2014, 08:53:01 AM: It depends. I had pass through and it went hundreds of yards. Then at times the nock stuck out and it went 40 yards.

I say don't worry too much about it. Just put the arrow in the zone and call it good.
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on August 08, 2014, 09:10:24 AM: :yeah: IMO The benefits of having a passthrus outweigh the "constant cut" theory on all hits archers want and consider quick kill shots. That said, if the arrow ends up in the "quartered" scenario and has not cut the big 2 (double lung/heart), I do think having the "possibility" of the arrow continuing to cut can be a factor.
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: Fullabull on August 08, 2014, 10:51:57 AM: I have shot two bulls with my arrow going into the chest with no pass through. The nice thing about no pass through is if you get an arrow into the chest, when the bull takes off that arrow and broad head is getting moved hard back and forth within the elks chest because of their own movement, causing massive damage. One bull went about 15 yards pumping blood out of the one hole in his chest. The second bull went about 30 yards and collapsed after chocking out lots of blood.

If you get a solid chest hit with good penetration, the elk is not going far whether its a pass through or not. It's on the lesser hits that you want a pass through for sure so there are two holes to bleed out of. This definitely helps with recovery of an elk who can run 100's of yards. Remember, the longer the arrow is inside the elks body, the more damage it's going to do!
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: DoubleJ on August 08, 2014, 11:54:03 AM: If it goes in and doesn't come out, and by chance the arrow breaks, just ve VERY carefull when gutting
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: Come Get Some on August 08, 2014, 07:00:42 PM: I prefer 2 holes that leak not 1. It all depends on the arrow placement. I have shot bulls quartering towards me at 50 yds that did not take a step, Got the heart,lungs and liver. Depends on terrain and adrenalin in the animal. If they are relaxed and you call exactly when you shoot ,they will usually take a step or 2 and look around before dropping over dead. Pass thru or not if it is in the boiler room they do not do well
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: sakoshooter on August 08, 2014, 09:43:04 PM: A couple schools of thought on this: 1) A complete pass thru cut everything it could plus you've got blood coming out onto the ground from two holes.
2) A broadhead stuck in an animal usually keeps cutting as the shaft hits trees and limbs as the animal runs off untill it gets broken. And even then it will continue to do damage as internal organs bounce up and down over the broadhead when the animal is running.
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: RadSav on August 09, 2014, 05:16:08 AM: IMO it really depends on shot placement. If major vitals are cut with both shots an exit would accelerate the rate at which blood is lost by helping to eliminate the creation of a vacuum. Similar to the use of a breather hole to assist emptying of a barrel through a bung hole.

If either scenario destroys the Autonomic Plexus between the heart and lungs death will be equally rapid regardless of vacuum and/or rapid loss of blood.

One of the scenarios where confusion arises is in the use of two blade broadheads. Most choose such a blade for it's ability to create both an entrance and exit wound from lighter draw weight bows. However, the design leaves potential to miss major vessels within the diameter path. And further more it leaves potential when cutting solid tissue to split the fibers without leaving a wound crossing the fibers resulting in very minimal blood loss. So it could be increasingly beneficial that a two blade broadhead not exit as it really is the blade style that imparts the most internal damage if left within the cavity for secondary cutting.

On shot placements where major vessels and tissues are missed or hit with minimal damage over-penetration can be detrimental. Where leaving the broadhead inside the cavity or in contact with the tissue can impart additional damage greater than the benefits of eliminating vacuum.

For recovery of animals by the tracking challenged or the tree stand hunter an exit wound is generally the preferred scenario as blood trails will be stronger and easier to follow. On level ground or uphill shots it really is a matter of where you hit and what you hit.

Sooner or later in bowhunting you will find yourself in a situation where you had too much penetration or not enough. Unfortunately, you can't have both!
Title: Re: Which is Better?
Post by: demontang on August 10, 2014, 08:05:30 PM: Good info radsav :tup: