HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
Old 08-12-2005 | 01:40 PM
  #46  
Trushot_archer
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
From: Detroit
Default RE: Addressing the "small" broadhead comments

Oldhoot....
I certainly meant no offense. I have nothing against ST at all. But it may not be the very best head for every situation from every bow. No head is. Let me ask this...

Do you agree that all esle being equal thata 3-1 Length head will slice through tissue, muscle and hide more effectiveley than a 1-1?


Bigbulls....
The analogy of the Turkey head I felt was perfectly pertinent given the data and info on cutting diameter that you provided.

Make no mistake...these heads are good and work and are here to stay.

But the numbers and data given here are misleading and I feel there should be evidence on both sides here.

Muzzy/ thunderhead..... 1.782 X 20 = 35.64 inches of cut flesh
Stinger........................ 1.813 X 20 = 36.26 inches of cut flesh
Steel force................... 1.938 X 20 = 38.76 inches of cut flesh
__________________________________________________ ____

Nitron......................... 1.595 X 20 = 31.9 inches of cut flesh
Montec....................... 1.688 X 20 = 33.76 inches of cut flesh
Slick trick................... 2.25 X 20 = 45 inches of cut flesh
Let's plug the Guillotine into your formula...

My point is there are many other factors to which attention should be paid than theoretical"cut flesh" inches

IF...your point is that the smaller heads aren't as bad as some make them out to be??

I concur.
Trushot_archer is offline  
Reply