RE: Snyper report....NOT GOOD!!!
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I think you are taking this a wee bit out of context.
What some of us are implying is that the poor penetration might have been related to low amounts of KE, and the head disintegration related to something else (either a design flaw, or a fluke) despite the aforementioned poor penetration, not because of it.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Or maybe I am not taking it out of context and the head disentegration IS what caused the poor penetration. It never fails when someone comes here and tells about a mechanical head failing, someone that shoots that head comes to it's defense by accusing the shooter of having a bow that is "untuned" eventhough they have no idea who the person is or how well there bow is tuned. I have had #$@# poor penetration from mechanicals and I don't have marginal KE or a poorly tuned bow. Hell, I have set up 500 bows(must have learned something) I have had penetration problems with Spitfires with perfectly broadside shots not going in but 6 inches or so and I know just like I know the sun will come up tomorrow, that my bow was tuned. So I am just saying that there is not always another perspective or a spin on things.
Maybe and I know this is tough for some of you but just maybe the head just failed. I think the one thing that most of the KE arguments have produced is an agreement that broadhead choice is one of the most important factors in penetration. If your broadhead fails it really doesn't matter how much KE you have you aren't going to get good penetration.
Protect your hunting rights, "Spay or neuter a liberal."