Oldhootowl

"A broadhead with a 3X1 Length X Width will be a much more efficient machine when slicing than the 1X1 that some of the smaller heads boast." "But to say that these smaller profile heads are just as effective and efficient out of ANY bow at ANY poundage and ANY arrow weight is a tad misleading." LOL I guess I could be mad, kinda sounds like somebody calling me a liar. Actually I find it amusing, guys are being told to stick with the old proven long heads like Thunderheads and Muzzy. Well, I remember when they came out, and guess what? Naysayers delivered the wisdom that they wouldn't work, they were too SHORT, LOL, and they had too STEEP LOL a blade angle. After all, they weren't 3 to 1, and everybody "knew" they wouldn't work as well. That was in 84-85. So how come they have dominated the market the last 15 years? Too many guys tried them and found out the old wisdom was hogwash. Thunderheads took off immediately, Muzzy struggled. Why? Because everybody was told that the tip wouldn't penetrate, it wasn't "cut on contact". Some guys reported that they shot deer broadside at 20 yards and the arrows bounced off. Took Muzzy years to get past those stories. But they worked, and eventually people found out, and began reporting that they were better than "cut on contact", because the tip shattered bone and kept penetrating unlike the "cut on contact", which didn't shatter bone but only pinched to a stop. Muzzy latched on to the bad to the bone advertising, and caught Thunderhead as the top 2 heads on the market. You may check 5 shots tests and see which heads penetrate better, 3X1 or the short heads. If the 3X1 heads are "much more efficient machines when slicing", then why did they fail to penetrate as well in the tire??? Should have had that big slicing efficiency advantage, right? Didn't. A woman named Suzanna from MI using 85 grain Tricks just emailed me thanking me for making a head that women could use. Sent me pics of 3 warthogs and a kudu or orynx she took with her 53 lb bow, all passthroughs. I think she took a total of 8 animals, and her husband took 10 with 100 grain magnum Tricks. But if you can provide mewith your research on the efficiency and penetration you have stated I will be glad to adjust any advertising or claims accordingly. You see, people don't say they do what they do because they read it in an ad. I advertise what I do because that is what people tell me they do, like the lady above. And I don't havepeople hired to spam the net either. Lots of people have inquired about being shooters,saying they are shooting X brand now but tried mine and they are the best. Some of them, when told I don't have ashooterprogram or reps, now, when the subject of Tricks come up, always chime in thatpeople should try theirX brand. Its kindafunny. And I know that you are going to keep shooting what you have been shooting, and thats fine, I'm sure they kill well and hope you get a big one. Frankly Imake heads because I have a compulsion to be creative, and if 200 or 2 million people use my heads thats fine with me. I have never had much money, so I wouldn't know what to do with it anyway, except use it to make some other product I have an interest in. But I will guarantee you what I say I believe because that is what evidence has ledme to believe, from consistent controlled repeatable tests byindependent testersand in the field use by unbiased hunters.Hope you get a big one, THANKS GARY

Oldhootowl

P.S. Reminds me of Elvis in high school. Had long hair that wasn't as efficient as the other guys. Strummed a guitar a little. Everybody laughed at him. Elvis response? "Ya'll see. Ya'll see some day."

lou-lou

Gary, I hope you go big someday, beyond your dreams and your products go world wide.. You have a following for your heads, just need more people to try them and spread the word. It's kinda hard to buy something that you can't see in your hand, hopefully more people buy them and they work there way to NY. Looking to see them at bigger stores soon.

Cougar Mag

Nobody here is making fun of Slick Tricks or the new smaller heads. I was not even skeptical. It makes sense when a steel ferrule and thicker blades can be constructed into a favored weight grain broadhead. I just picked up a pack of some new smaller heads(Rocky Mtn. Turbos) and am very impressed with the flight, strength and penetration(in a broadhead target). They are not Slick Tricks because they were not available through my nearest pro shop(I've told him about 10 times he should order some).

Wolf Dog

Big Bulls your statement is off

So hopefully now many of you now realize, when looking for or talking about broadheads, that the overall size of the head does not make the hole. The cutting diameter plus the number of blades makes the hole and cuts the tissue.

That said a 1 inch blade on a broadhead shaft cuts a 1 inch hole. Correct
10x1 inch blades do notmakeholes10 x larger.
You are giving bad info out about cutting dia IMO.

It all sounds good with 1 or 2 or 3-4 blades but the math will not work sorry.

DIA is the same as total DIA. 1 inch =1 inch end to end it will make 2 inches

If I look at it your way "Double this number for the four blades and you get a total slash factor of 2.25 inches." a simple man would say you need high #s with your bow to use this type of head. If you hit bone look out! A pop can is 2 1/2 inches DIA.

Oldhootowl

Well, I am a simple man, so I feel qualified to answer. You are right that "The cutting diameter plus the number of blades makes the hole and cuts the tissue." I will let everybody else speak for themselves, but a 1" X 1" head cuts 2", and certainly cuts twice as muchas a1" 2 blade.Is the 1" 4 blade more deadly? You betcha. Does it open a better hole? You betcha. Will you be more likely tosever an artery or vein? You betcha. Will you be more likely to get a good blood trail? You betcha.Will, on all hits, you be more likely to kill the animal in a quicker period of time? You betcha. You must consider that a wound tends to pull open as flesh and muscle and tissue is under tension. Or, consider ethafoam targets, they clamp and close, the exact opposite of what an animal does. A 2 blade head will make a slit that will pull open a bit. A 3 blade head will open more in somewhat the shape of a triangle. A 4 blade head will open the most in somewhat the shape of a square, and will most closely approximate a round hole. A three blade triangular hole that has a 1 1/8" diameter does not cut as much as a 1" 4 blade square hole, and the 1 1/8" 3 blade does not make quite as good a hole. Also, if you check, each head will have the possibility of cutting veins and arteries the other doesn't, so that is a wash. But you are correct there is a limit to how much you can cut as it pertains to penetration. But if you test, or check 5 shots tests, you will find a 1" X 1" 4 blade while cutting more and opening a good hole, penetrates as well or better than bigger 3 blades. Why? Well,penetration is more affected by the width of the blades than it is the number. There is a leverage factor. And what about 5 blades? There is also a diminishing rate of returns, and 5 blades do not have much significance on the hole,since 4 blades cut in every direction, andonly hinders penetration. So there is a happy medium, and that is what I was after. 4 blades open good holes but still gives great penetration. Wide width heads also won't go through bone as well as smaller widths. So, a 4 blade head that cuts a total of 2 to 2.25" gives most people maximum lethality, a good hole for good hemorrage and a blood trail, good odds ofsevering a vein or artery,good odds for a passthrough even if reasonable bone is hit, and 4 blades help shatter bone as they start to enter. So, 2 blades will work ok, 3 blades is better, and 4 is the best of all. In my simple opinion, of course, you are entitled to yours.

bigbulls

Wolf Dog.........My statements are exactly correct. A single bladed broadhead with a cutting diameter of 1 inch makes a single 1 inch slice. A broadhead with two 1 inch blades makes two 1 inch slices at 90 degrees from each other thus cutting twice as much tissue as the single blade head. The more blades you add to the broadehad the more tissue it will cut when passing through an animal.

The 10X1 inch head you give as an example would not make the hole ten times as large but it would cut ten times the ammount of tissue when passing through the animal given equal penetration. However just like Garry said there is a place you come to when you begin to get diminished returns.

Another note about penetration.... The entire arrow must follow the broadhead through the hole that it creates. The more "open" that hole is the less resistance the tissue creates on the trailing arrow and fletchings.

KYFRED

This is interesting. I was about to post the same basic theory that Big Bull posted – with a small twist.

I have been shooting Muzzy’s for 7 years. Two years ago I bought a new faster bow and went to a lighter carbon arrow. Up until this time, the Muzzy shot great. With faster speed, different bow or new arrow’s I lost accuracy. I bought the slick tricks and have been extremely happy with both consistent flight and penetration.

I understand the mathematics; I have a master’s degree in statistics and finance. It is infinitely more complicated that just the cutting surface. The angle of the cut and size of the head are also contributing factors. If the angle is too steep (like the gobbler guillotine), kinetic energy will be lost and penetration diminished. If the blades are too long and steep, there is additional drag and penetration can be lost. If the blades are too thin, they can break and create drag or hang-up.

When shot from the same bow with the same arrow, a 100-grain broadhead will carry the same basic energy as another 100-grain head. If the arrow flies truer, there may be slightly better energy, as less is lost in flight.

Archery hunters rely on their quarry hemorrhaging. This is accomplished by creating the optimal wound in an optimal place. Four-blades cut more than comparably sized three-blade broad heads. If it were up to the shape of the wound, a large fat arrow would be the top choice, but the amount of damaged flesh is key to a successful shot.

One could also argue that an arrow with a great deal of spin will do more damage than one spinning less. However, this argument neglects to consider the internal drag created or the amount of spin lost during initial penetration or increased potential for deflection.

Bottom line, there are too many factors and shooter variations that influence arrow trajectory, penetration and ability to humanly kill. For me, it boils down to accuracy. An arrow that does not pass through the game, but hits both lungs is a far betterthan a poorly shot pass through gutshot.

I am going to be using the Slicktricks and am retiring my Muzzy’s. Although I tried them because of the good things being said, I have improved accuracy, arrow weight remains unchanged, target penetration has not suffered and the diameter of the cut has not been diminished..

Would thunderheads or Techan’s fly equally as well as the SlickTricks? Maybe, but I have a setup that is working and do not have the financial resources or feel the need to change.

Are there flaws in my comments? Without a doubt. Are there flaws in Bigbulls original thought process? Probably? However the intended purpose appears to be one that attempts to dispel the myth that the overall size of the broadhead matters. In this case, the Slicktrick is the same weight and generates the same basic cut as its competitors.In my case, it flew better too.

jmcg

Well said 'KY Fred', well said.

bigbulls

Exactly.

Man, I am glad there are a few people that get it.