I'm not trying to debunk anything, just expressing a VERY VALID concern with their method of testing....

I can't decide if this is true independent science, or a clever marketing scheme.

Case in point.
Broadhead Myth Busters: Part II

I personally have a problem with sponsored parties doing "Scientific Studies" of different brands and types of products...and then playing it off as an independent article.Call me a cynic, and I'll even own up to it, but I just can't shake the thought that those conducting the"experiment" could have possibly designed the"experiment" specifically to highlight a desired outcome. NOT AN ACCUSATION, merely an expression of a fear.

Seems like if this were a truely independent test for the good of all bowhunters, the tests would have been more wide ranging, and the results would have read somethingless brand specific...(ie... blade tipped, 3-blade expandable broadheads).

I canaccept the "TCV" explanation and the theory that more cut tissue bleeds more.(seems like common sense to me), but what happens when bones get in the way??? I'm not trying to debunk anything, just expressing a VERY VALID concern with their method of testing....

Personally I'd like to see some set ups like on the real MythBusters where they suspend ribcages in the gel as it sets, to provide an adequate analog of a deer's anatomy.