I must not have been very clear about what I am asking in my OP.

I'm not against new ideas or trying new things providing it is based on sound logic.

I'm asking what experiences have led people to think it is sound logic to trade penetration for bigger holes because my experience tells me just the opposite

Every year I help at least one person try to recover a lost deer due to lack of penetration by a overly large broadhead and read/hear about many, many more and never once because a broadhead passed through the vitals but wasn't big enough.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the logic and "because I can" doesn't help me do that.


What experiences have led you to the conclusion that you needed a bigger hole and less penetration?