Getting past the inappropriateness of the "test" of a particular broadhead, let us evaluate the necessity and advantage of using a broadhead that mangles the game. Any bowhunter having only minimal experience knows that you do not have to mangle a deer with a devastating wound to bring it down. Any sharp broadhead through the boiler room of an animal will normally do the job, regardless that it does not have a 3.5mm diameter.

The advantage of using a broadhead having just the necessary and efficient capacity to kill a deer, the types (broadheads) that have been killing animals for years, is that if the wound is not mortal and the wound is not too grave, there is a chance the deer could survive. Deer have been surviving arrow wounds for years when the wounds were not lethal wounds. In fact, such an argument (deer can often survive an arrow wound) is a defensive argument that bowhunters have had in their corner for years.

Who is willing to go out on the limb and declare that is guaranteed that such a egregious wound as recently depicted in some photos will always put the deer down within a reasonable distance and/or within an appropriate period? Not me!

I doubt any deer with such a wound which was not immediately killed or soon recovered would have much of chance to survive. If the deer did not die from blood-loss, the animal would die from a grievous infection and/or starvation, and would die a slow and horrible death. It would be merciful if the predators got the deer (animal) down and killed it quickly.

So, if such a devastating wound does not guarantee a kill or a recovery, what is the necessity and advantage of a broadhead that mangles an animal? I have a feeling that some will base the advantage on marginal hits and a better blood trail, since misses and marginal hits happen to anyone, and many hunters these day's seem to be unable to track a hit animal without a "yellow brick road" type of blood trail.