Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
08-08-2005, 11:04 PM
#41
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 83
RE: Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
So is this correct?
You want accuracy 1st to put the arrow in the exact spot you aim.
You want "Archery hunters rely on their quarry hemorrhaging. This is accomplished by creating the optimal wound in an optimal place"
So that said you would like a big cut correct.
Last you would like to save energy so you penetrate the game and get into the
Animal’s optimal place where you do the most damage to create massive Hemorrhaging.
Is this correct?
You want accuracy 1st to put the arrow in the exact spot you aim.
You want "Archery hunters rely on their quarry hemorrhaging. This is accomplished by creating the optimal wound in an optimal place"
So that said you would like a big cut correct.
Last you would like to save energy so you penetrate the game and get into the
Animal’s optimal place where you do the most damage to create massive Hemorrhaging.
Is this correct?
08-09-2005, 07:45 AM
#42
Spike
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bowling Green, KY
Posts: 73
RE: Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
Mr. Wolf Dog:
As I stated in my original post, it is not so simple that one factor determines the best broadhead. If a broadhead were available that provided a 2-inch cut, but flew poorly, I would not use it.
So, I guess the answer the first question of “So that said you would like a big cut correct.” Would have to be it depends. If a big cut causes me to sacrifice accuracy, I may not want a big cut. It is my belief that a large part of archery is about compromise.
Our arrows could be lighter and fly faster, but that would create lost energy at the point of impact. It may also cause the arrow to drift. Thus, we compromise on the arrow weight to improve killing efficiency.
We could all pull more, but when it is cold, we may be unable to draw the bow back with minimal movement. We may also find that the additional weight does not allow us to hold as steady. Thus, we compromise on draw weight.
Larger broadheads would increase the opportunity for more blood. However, it may increase arrow drift, added unnecessary weight or could deflect more easily. Thus, we compromise on broadhead cut.
There are many people smarter than me that have been designing broadheads for years. Although I have only been archery hunting for a short time, I have not seen many large broadheads on the market. This would seem to indicate that while cutting surface is important, the manufacturers have acknowledged that it may negatively impact the other factors too greatly and have not introduced such an item. The gobbler guillotine being the exception, but it is a special purpose head with limited applications.
As we look at the evolution of the archery, it has become more specialized with animal specific arrows, fletching and broadheads, smaller broadheads and mechanical heads. This is not to say the new way is better, it is only different.
When comparing broadheads, the weight, diameter and number of heads is key. The angle of the blade plays a factor, although small. Broadheads cut a whole that is equal to its total width. Yes, there could be some additional tearing of flesh, but the wound is basically the same diameter. A big cut can be obtained from a two bladed broad head, but the overall damage may be less that that of a 3 or 4 bladed head. Additionally, a 3 or 4 bladed head will not allow the flesh to “fall” back together as easily as a 2-bladed cut.
The diameter of a 100 grain muzzy and a 100 grain slicktrick is the same. The muzzy simply has a longer blade. Now, an argument could be made that the longer blades improves the slice of the wound. But, that is just another one of the factors I mentioned in my original post.
With regard to your second question:
Last you would like to save energy so you penetrate the game and get into the Animal’s optimal place where you do the most damage to create massive Hemorrhaging.
Is this correct?
It is my position that I owe it to the game I hunt to make sure I kill the animal as humanly as possible. To accomplish this, I must first place the arrow in the intended location. When this is accomplished, the difference between broadhead of equal weight, blades and overall diameter is negligible. That being said, I switched to the shorter shafted broadhead with the same cutting diameter because arrow flight was more consistent. Will I lose energy because the aggressive slope of the arrow blade? An engineer would better be able to answer this. However, I do know that every arrow I have shot at an animal has been a pass through, I do not believe that a change to a truer flying broadhead will have a significant impact on this.
As a thought and for another thread, other than for tracking, is a pass through optimal? Would we be better to have the arrow use all its energy in the animal and remain inside the opposite ribcage to trash and cut more: i.e. increase hemorrhaging? Possibly, but in an attempt to properly retrieve the animal this is a compromise we have also made.
As I stated in my original post, it is not so simple that one factor determines the best broadhead. If a broadhead were available that provided a 2-inch cut, but flew poorly, I would not use it.
So, I guess the answer the first question of “So that said you would like a big cut correct.” Would have to be it depends. If a big cut causes me to sacrifice accuracy, I may not want a big cut. It is my belief that a large part of archery is about compromise.
Our arrows could be lighter and fly faster, but that would create lost energy at the point of impact. It may also cause the arrow to drift. Thus, we compromise on the arrow weight to improve killing efficiency.
We could all pull more, but when it is cold, we may be unable to draw the bow back with minimal movement. We may also find that the additional weight does not allow us to hold as steady. Thus, we compromise on draw weight.
Larger broadheads would increase the opportunity for more blood. However, it may increase arrow drift, added unnecessary weight or could deflect more easily. Thus, we compromise on broadhead cut.
There are many people smarter than me that have been designing broadheads for years. Although I have only been archery hunting for a short time, I have not seen many large broadheads on the market. This would seem to indicate that while cutting surface is important, the manufacturers have acknowledged that it may negatively impact the other factors too greatly and have not introduced such an item. The gobbler guillotine being the exception, but it is a special purpose head with limited applications.
As we look at the evolution of the archery, it has become more specialized with animal specific arrows, fletching and broadheads, smaller broadheads and mechanical heads. This is not to say the new way is better, it is only different.
When comparing broadheads, the weight, diameter and number of heads is key. The angle of the blade plays a factor, although small. Broadheads cut a whole that is equal to its total width. Yes, there could be some additional tearing of flesh, but the wound is basically the same diameter. A big cut can be obtained from a two bladed broad head, but the overall damage may be less that that of a 3 or 4 bladed head. Additionally, a 3 or 4 bladed head will not allow the flesh to “fall” back together as easily as a 2-bladed cut.
The diameter of a 100 grain muzzy and a 100 grain slicktrick is the same. The muzzy simply has a longer blade. Now, an argument could be made that the longer blades improves the slice of the wound. But, that is just another one of the factors I mentioned in my original post.
With regard to your second question:
Last you would like to save energy so you penetrate the game and get into the Animal’s optimal place where you do the most damage to create massive Hemorrhaging.
Is this correct?
It is my position that I owe it to the game I hunt to make sure I kill the animal as humanly as possible. To accomplish this, I must first place the arrow in the intended location. When this is accomplished, the difference between broadhead of equal weight, blades and overall diameter is negligible. That being said, I switched to the shorter shafted broadhead with the same cutting diameter because arrow flight was more consistent. Will I lose energy because the aggressive slope of the arrow blade? An engineer would better be able to answer this. However, I do know that every arrow I have shot at an animal has been a pass through, I do not believe that a change to a truer flying broadhead will have a significant impact on this.
As a thought and for another thread, other than for tracking, is a pass through optimal? Would we be better to have the arrow use all its energy in the animal and remain inside the opposite ribcage to trash and cut more: i.e. increase hemorrhaging? Possibly, but in an attempt to properly retrieve the animal this is a compromise we have also made.
08-09-2005, 08:51 AM
#43
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pocahontas AR USA
Posts: 96
RE: Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
One last post, each day I get further behind, and I will leave you guys alone. Accuracy is important. A good hole is important. Penetration is important. Strength is important. Reliability is important. Tricks are devised to best incorporate each of these in a broadhead. A verylarge broadhead through the lungs will kill the same as a reasonable sized broadhead. But avery large broadhead may not penetrate bone and get to the vitals on a less than great shot, and may stop before exiting. You want a head that has a very good chance of making a good entry and exit wound to leave a blood trail if tracking is necessary. It does no good to kill an animal with a very large broadhead if you can't find it. Finally, I will share one other thought that may catch you off guard. Tricks are designed to have an optimum blade angle to cut a bigger hole. Believe it or not, the angle of Tricks blades will make a bigger hole than the same diameter blades of a long head. The reason is that as any broadhead penetrates, contact with the tip of the head creates a "cone" with the hide or tissue. If the blades have a certain angle, they will take advantage of this and cut a longer hole than the diameter of the blades. A very long head will cut closer to the diameter of the blades. There is a reason guys comment on the size of Tricks holes and say they look like a 10 guage. The kicker is the shorter blades also penetrate better. Ok, thats it, its been fun, carry on without me.
08-09-2005, 02:21 PM
#44
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Deep in the heart of......... Texas USA
Posts: 1,327
RE: Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
One last post, each day I get further behind
BTW....thanks for all your interesting posts and info.....and your patience in dealing with these issues. After reading all posts in all threads concerning slick tricks, I believe you have a good product and want to try them. I realize there are other good products out there.....with my inexperience, I'm looking for all the help I can get in selecting them.
08-09-2005, 08:19 PM
#45
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location:
Posts: 83
RE: Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
Hunter talks about big entrance holes why?
The entrance hole is not vital.
It is on the top of the animal 90% of the time from an archer.
Blood is not pumped up and out of the hole.
You might get blood to brush off on tall grass and trees.
If I take a 5 gal. Paint can in the woods and pop the top off I can walk back to my truck never dropping a spot of paint. Correct.
I can poke a pin size hole in the bottom of the bucket and get paint from the time I poked itall the way back tothe truck.
This also has not accounted for spray blood for the mouth of the animal because the lungs are cut 1/2.
I thing the larger the blade the better IMO.
But you need 100% accuracy with the large baldes.
Not small blades x 3-4
Aslice from a 10 gauge size hole or 3 cuts or 4 or 6 or 10 cuts it is still a 10 gauge size hole
I want a 2 inch or 4 inch bomb going off inside the game.
Think about it if we could pull and shoot 150# draw and a 7 inch head we would.
not talking away from 50# and 1 1/8 cut blades
But more power and more damage only make thing fall faster.
22 short cal. 50gr = 510 nitro cal 500gr.
If you had to pick 1 to save your life it would not be the 22.
The entrance hole is not vital.
It is on the top of the animal 90% of the time from an archer.
Blood is not pumped up and out of the hole.
You might get blood to brush off on tall grass and trees.
If I take a 5 gal. Paint can in the woods and pop the top off I can walk back to my truck never dropping a spot of paint. Correct.
I can poke a pin size hole in the bottom of the bucket and get paint from the time I poked itall the way back tothe truck.
This also has not accounted for spray blood for the mouth of the animal because the lungs are cut 1/2.
I thing the larger the blade the better IMO.
But you need 100% accuracy with the large baldes.
Not small blades x 3-4
Aslice from a 10 gauge size hole or 3 cuts or 4 or 6 or 10 cuts it is still a 10 gauge size hole
I want a 2 inch or 4 inch bomb going off inside the game.
Think about it if we could pull and shoot 150# draw and a 7 inch head we would.
not talking away from 50# and 1 1/8 cut blades
But more power and more damage only make thing fall faster.
22 short cal. 50gr = 510 nitro cal 500gr.
If you had to pick 1 to save your life it would not be the 22.
08-12-2005, 01:40 PM
#46
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 858
RE: Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
Oldhoot....
I certainly meant no offense. I have nothing against ST at all. But it may not be the very best head for every situation from every bow. No head is. Let me ask this...
Do you agree that all esle being equal thata 3-1 Length head will slice through tissue, muscle and hide more effectiveley than a 1-1?
Bigbulls....
The analogy of the Turkey head I felt was perfectly pertinent given the data and info on cutting diameter that you provided.
Make no mistake...these heads are good and work and are here to stay.
But the numbers and data given here are misleading and I feel there should be evidence on both sides here.
Let's plug the Guillotine into your formula...
My point is there are many other factors to which attention should be paid than theoretical"cut flesh" inches
IF...your point is that the smaller heads aren't as bad as some make them out to be??
I concur.
I certainly meant no offense. I have nothing against ST at all. But it may not be the very best head for every situation from every bow. No head is. Let me ask this...
Do you agree that all esle being equal thata 3-1 Length head will slice through tissue, muscle and hide more effectiveley than a 1-1?
Bigbulls....
The analogy of the Turkey head I felt was perfectly pertinent given the data and info on cutting diameter that you provided.
Make no mistake...these heads are good and work and are here to stay.
But the numbers and data given here are misleading and I feel there should be evidence on both sides here.
Muzzy/ thunderhead..... 1.782 X 20 = 35.64 inches of cut flesh
Stinger........................ 1.813 X 20 = 36.26 inches of cut flesh
Steel force................... 1.938 X 20 = 38.76 inches of cut flesh
__________________________________________________ ____
Nitron......................... 1.595 X 20 = 31.9 inches of cut flesh
Montec....................... 1.688 X 20 = 33.76 inches of cut flesh
Slick trick................... 2.25 X 20 = 45 inches of cut flesh
Stinger........................ 1.813 X 20 = 36.26 inches of cut flesh
Steel force................... 1.938 X 20 = 38.76 inches of cut flesh
__________________________________________________ ____
Nitron......................... 1.595 X 20 = 31.9 inches of cut flesh
Montec....................... 1.688 X 20 = 33.76 inches of cut flesh
Slick trick................... 2.25 X 20 = 45 inches of cut flesh
My point is there are many other factors to which attention should be paid than theoretical"cut flesh" inches
IF...your point is that the smaller heads aren't as bad as some make them out to be??
I concur.
08-12-2005, 06:49 PM
#47
Boone & Crockett
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,679
RE: Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
The gobbler guillotine is designed for a different purpose entirely and as such has no bearing on this topic at all. It would penetrate a deers chest about like shooting one with a brick.
It's kind of like comparing 6 different race cars and then someone jumping in the conversation and throwing in a Ford F-250. Apples and oranges.
I guess I should have cleared it up for everyone by saying that this thread applys only to broadheads specifically designed for penetrating the bodies of big game animals.
Well that's pretty much what the thread is about. Even the title of the thread refers to "small" broadheads. I thought I made it pretty clear that I was comparing three typical broadheads to three "small" broadheads and showing that the small heads do, in fact, cut a large amount of flesh when passing through an animal.
There are many great "small" broadheads out there that will provide the hunter with every bit the performance, and many times much better performance, than the so called "proven" large heads.
It's kind of like comparing 6 different race cars and then someone jumping in the conversation and throwing in a Ford F-250. Apples and oranges.
I guess I should have cleared it up for everyone by saying that this thread applys only to broadheads specifically designed for penetrating the bodies of big game animals.
IF...your point is that the smaller heads aren't as bad as some make them out to be??
There are many great "small" broadheads out there that will provide the hunter with every bit the performance, and many times much better performance, than the so called "proven" large heads.
08-13-2005, 04:06 PM
#48
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 858
RE: Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
Come on Big Bulls...no need to get worked up brother...just diatribe here. We can agree to disagree no?I actualy agree about everything stated in the last post but...
There are many great "small" broadheads out there that will provide the hunter with every bit the performance
Do they work? Probably
Are they effective? Probably
Do they fly great and are they even easier to tune maybe? No question.
But when your walking the line in power, whether it's a short draw or low poundage...the 3-1 Length to Width head will be the better performer in regards to penetration. That is a fact of physics.
My point with the Turkey head was an extreme one I know....but using your math formula as the only criteria....apples to apples brother
08-13-2005, 04:29 PM
#49
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location:
Posts: 54
RE: Addressing the "small" broadhead comments
Trushot,
Bud, your pee peeing with the fan turned on high if your going to break out the physics word with this crew. I tried that in an old "first impression of ST" post.....got the same love your receiving! I even talked about a 90 degree blade broadhead (didn't know about the gobbler g., but that's what I was trying to describe)...didn't work either. If it's worth anything I support you!
Bud, your pee peeing with the fan turned on high if your going to break out the physics word with this crew. I tried that in an old "first impression of ST" post.....got the same love your receiving! I even talked about a 90 degree blade broadhead (didn't know about the gobbler g., but that's what I was trying to describe)...didn't work either. If it's worth anything I support you!