Mr. Wolf Dog:

As I stated in my original post, it is not so simple that one factor determines the best broadhead. If a broadhead were available that provided a 2-inch cut, but flew poorly, I would not use it.

So, I guess the answer the first question of “So that said you would like a big cut correct.” Would have to be it depends. If a big cut causes me to sacrifice accuracy, I may not want a big cut. It is my belief that a large part of archery is about compromise.

Our arrows could be lighter and fly faster, but that would create lost energy at the point of impact. It may also cause the arrow to drift. Thus, we compromise on the arrow weight to improve killing efficiency.

We could all pull more, but when it is cold, we may be unable to draw the bow back with minimal movement. We may also find that the additional weight does not allow us to hold as steady. Thus, we compromise on draw weight.

Larger broadheads would increase the opportunity for more blood. However, it may increase arrow drift, added unnecessary weight or could deflect more easily. Thus, we compromise on broadhead cut.

There are many people smarter than me that have been designing broadheads for years. Although I have only been archery hunting for a short time, I have not seen many large broadheads on the market. This would seem to indicate that while cutting surface is important, the manufacturers have acknowledged that it may negatively impact the other factors too greatly and have not introduced such an item. The gobbler guillotine being the exception, but it is a special purpose head with limited applications.

As we look at the evolution of the archery, it has become more specialized with animal specific arrows, fletching and broadheads, smaller broadheads and mechanical heads. This is not to say the new way is better, it is only different.

When comparing broadheads, the weight, diameter and number of heads is key. The angle of the blade plays a factor, although small. Broadheads cut a whole that is equal to its total width. Yes, there could be some additional tearing of flesh, but the wound is basically the same diameter. A big cut can be obtained from a two bladed broad head, but the overall damage may be less that that of a 3 or 4 bladed head. Additionally, a 3 or 4 bladed head will not allow the flesh to “fall” back together as easily as a 2-bladed cut.

The diameter of a 100 grain muzzy and a 100 grain slicktrick is the same. The muzzy simply has a longer blade. Now, an argument could be made that the longer blades improves the slice of the wound. But, that is just another one of the factors I mentioned in my original post.

With regard to your second question:
Last you would like to save energy so you penetrate the game and get into the Animal’s optimal place where you do the most damage to create massive Hemorrhaging.

Is this correct?

It is my position that I owe it to the game I hunt to make sure I kill the animal as humanly as possible. To accomplish this, I must first place the arrow in the intended location. When this is accomplished, the difference between broadhead of equal weight, blades and overall diameter is negligible. That being said, I switched to the shorter shafted broadhead with the same cutting diameter because arrow flight was more consistent. Will I lose energy because the aggressive slope of the arrow blade? An engineer would better be able to answer this. However, I do know that every arrow I have shot at an animal has been a pass through, I do not believe that a change to a truer flying broadhead will have a significant impact on this.
As a thought and for another thread, other than for tracking, is a pass through optimal? Would we be better to have the arrow use all its energy in the animal and remain inside the opposite ribcage to trash and cut more: i.e. increase hemorrhaging? Possibly, but in an attempt to properly retrieve the animal this is a compromise we have also made.