No, not quite is right. In case you missed it the last part of my post ended with some smiley faces which would indicate humor. My intention was to " fish" a little bit to see if Arthur would bite. The continued debate regarding slow heavy arrows with cut on contact tips and plenty of momentum versus faster, lighter arrrows with either Trocar style tips or expandable blades is an interesting one from my perspective. Though I do not disagree with either " side" of the debate I do tend to find myself falling more into the ICS carbon-expandable group than the aluminum-Magnus/Zwickey side simply because of my personal experience with my own setups.

Given enough KE a well tuned bow with proper shot placement will shoot expandable heads repeatedly through deer regardless of the cutting diameter of the head. I think few will dispute that. The core of the argument seems to lie with issue of marginal hits on areas such as the edge of the shoulder blade or other possible hard parts of the animal' s body. With the gift of common sense even the most devoted speed freak cannot argue that a heavy sharp object should provide better potential for success in such a situation.

However, I find any argument that does not sufficiently recognize the possibility of the effectiveness of the opposing " side" a bit hard to swallow. Now that comment is not necessarily directed towards the study in question as I have yet to read it but was rather directed at both " camps" in their continuing discussion of the issue.

Was my intention a bit more clear now?