I am pleased to find that there are readers who do seek the other sides of the stories, and clearly understand that debates arising from challenges are not always meant to be (just) argumentative and confrontational.

I never said that 5Shot should discontinue his testing of broadheads. However, in my opinion, many of the tests performed and the results obtained are good for entertainment but are not comparable or compatible with real life events. When design, performance, and quality control is the issue, the best information is information obtained from many sources and opinions; especially, information obtained from actual performance under actual conditions.

5Shot, I understand what you are saying. However, the performance of broadhead shot into a hide, green or dry, draped across a lightweight board, cannot possibly simulate the body of a live animal, nor the varied forces, external and internal, a live animal's body will impart upon the broadhead and shaft.

The one important action that would be difficult to reproduce, almost impossible, when using your model, it that when the broadhead was shot into the deer by huntmup, the shaft also entered the deer's body. The external/internal forces imparted upon the shaft would directly affect the action of the broadhead.

How different brands and designs of broadheads perform in a side-by-side test on a medium they were not designed for, does not mean that the results will be the same under actual conditions. The results under real conditions could greatly differ, even be reversed.

I have never used a "Slick Trick" broadhead and cannot testify that the head is good, bad, or somewhere in between. However, I would not be surprised to find that the large and steeply angled blades could cause a deflection problem if the penetration is angled.

Additionally, I would venture to assume that the short ferrule and large blades would decrease the KE rather quickly. Once the KE is drastically reduced, the cutting/penetration ability will suffer and can cause the broadhead to stop or to deflect into and through a path of lesser resistance.

Last, I have always been leery of large blades having large windows, designed to reduce planing. When penetrating hair, tissue, and tallow, blades having large windows have a greater tendency to gather body material and can immensely impede penetration and cutting.


Edited by - c903 on 11/26/2002 10:18:48

PatapscoMike I had not thought of that, I will have to check out the Snyper's for next year, I had my first bowkill this year using spitfires, they did one heck of a job, put it was a perfect broadside shot.

c903 I totally concur that it would be very difficult without spending thousands of dollars to emulate an actual deer, money that I am sure 5 shot can not afford, I am also in total agreement that 5 shot's test are not gospel in regards to simulating broadhead performance on a live deer.

5 shot the test you do on broadheads are very informative and do have an effect on my choice of broadhead, do I shoot the same you do hunting? No, but I have used your data to decide between one broadhead versus another.

Oh yea, BTW I am enjoying this thread a lot of good info, let me throw a question out there for some more knowledgeable than I, would the planing chances be greatly reduced by moving the blades further back from the tip? It seems to me it would, but that brings up another potential issue, how great of an effect would this have on arrow aerodynamics?

The Tazman aka Martin Price
Founder and President of
Virginia Disabled Outdoorsmen Club

Tazman, and PatapscoMike,
You will note that the mech head I have on the webpage shows the angle from the tip to the tips of the blades in different stages of opening.
Starting out, the mech head was at a maximum angle of 32 degrees (similar to the S/T) but growing to 41, then dropping back to 21.
IMHO, the problem with the deflection issue is when the head hits bone. On deployment, the skin will give as the head opens (blade opens about 1/8" before dropping back to a shallow angle).
Another benefit of the mech head, was that when shot through bone, the aluminum ring that stops the blades would get hit hard enough to make grooves when the blades hit it. this allowed the blades to extend further rearwards (more shallow angle...smaller hole). ON the head I tested, that was worth a few more degrees taken off (NOT the one in the pic).
That said, the Muzzy was at almost the SAME angle as the mech head, and the cutting edge head was better still.
Oddly enough, in my tests the mech head and the slick trick did best in penetration through bone. Most likely due to the large tip on the mech head allowing the rest of the head, and arrow to follow unrestricted, and the short didtance from the tip to the blades on the slick trick allowing the hole to be made large very quickly as well.
Gimme a Muzzy with the point from the shockwave, and you'll have a nearly perfect head (In MY book anyway :-) )

c903, I should not have included the &quot;technical crap&quot; in my reply. I read the post at 1 o'clock in the morning and it appeared that you were attacking a friend. Am curious to know what you do. I am a welder in an 820 meg. power plant and deal with -------- engineers all the time. This is a very interesting subject. terry<img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle>

LIVE FREE OR DIE

I am retired. Although my professional duties covered a wide spectrum of applicable functions, of which analysis and theorem were crucial and often performed on a daily basis, criminal investigations -investigator and command, crime scene processing and forensics, and evidence technician were the primary roles I fulfilled.

I am conditioned to look at all six sides of a cube and try to find a seventh. Additionally, unless what I see or read is registered in my brain as an indisputable fact, I rarely take anything at face value. I am helpless in avoiding picking at something that raises a question until the question is satisfactorily answered and the facts, or near facts, are established.

However, in the end, common sense and awareness of what is realistic and what is practical is my usual guide.

Now you know why I can be a PITA (pain in the ass). I cannot help it. Also, hunting with two nephews, one a mechanical engineer and one an engineer and pilot, and having a long-time large animal vet for a close friend, is not good for my problem.

PS: Speaking of a cube having six sides, should not the edges also be considered.

I'm sitting here, thinking about the responses that I've read.

5 shot, thanks for the testing. Although I admit (along with you and c903) that the materials used in the test were not indicative and/or duplicate of real life conditions of a live animal, what you've done is side by side comparison uner CONTROLLED conditions (something that would be almost impossible to perform in real life).

My question is more geared towards c903. You've stated &quot;In fact, the medium you used would have had a coefficient of friction that could have assisted an angled penetration.&quot; In laymans terms, what 5 shot did would have increased the penetration??? How do you figure that? Stretch a blanket out over a board and try to make it deflect under pressure from your finger. Now take that same blanket and lay it on grass (with natural peaks/valleys) as you've described a live animals rib cage has, and try the same thing with your finger. Which method would indicate easier deflection of the blanket?

What 5 shot did was prove that both of these BH's will perform well under conditions that will almost certanly never occur in the wild (I've seen no deer with boards as rib cages), and that under real life conditions, both BH's 'should' perform OK.

*Just a quick note, I don't personally shoot either BH, but am very grateful to the testing that is performed here by others to inform all of us.

JMHO

Jim.

b]jcray[/b]

I am not positive, but I believe I understand what your point is when you say:

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Stretch a blanket out over a board and try to make it deflect under pressure from your finger. Now take that same blanket and lay it on grass (with natural peaks/valleys) as you've described a live animals rib cage has, and try the same thing with your finger. Which method would indicate easier deflection of the blanket?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

If I do understand your point, you must have misunderstood my analysis. What you stated in the above quote is not relevant. I was not talking about the hide (blanket) deflecting. Additionally, in no way could the lumps and bumps in grass simulate a ribcage.

You will have to explain this statement further. I would like to respond but I cannot pin down your point.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What 5 shot did was prove that both of these BH's will perform well under conditions that will almost certanly never occur in the wild (I've seen no deer with boards as rib cages), and that under real life conditions, both BH's 'should' perform OK.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

&quot;However, in the end, common sense and awareness of what is realistic and what is practical is my usual guide.&quot;

c903,

With that in mind what are your thoughts regarding deflection tendencies of the Slick Trick versus a more conventional head like the muzzy or a thunderhead? TIA

OK, I am very tight, but I have saved up and I have another 2 cents on this topic, which is still generating interest. First, in response to the other thread where it was said I took it personally. You're dang right I took it personally. Anybody who doesn't take a lost animal personally doesn't need to be in the broadhead business, and the day I don't I will get out. If my heads prove to be responsible I will take responsibility and take action. But I won't have a knee jerk reaction to one instance. One thing I like about John and Michelle Muz is they take it personally also. I was killing some time and cruising the web in the last couple weeks or so, and there was some guy posting that he had shot a couple deer broadside with Muzzies and he didn't penetrate, so he switched heads because Muzzy wouldn't penetrate. I figure either the guy had bad arrow flight, or the animal moved, or he was just one really unlucky dude, or all of the above. Other rational posts agreed. I doubt Muz jumped off a cliff about it. One thing that will never change is if somebody loses an animal, they blame something. I understand, I do it too. Nobody wants to think they are responsible for losing an animal. And sometimes, like if an animal moves just right, there is nothing to blame, stuff happens. Thats why its fair chase and we don't use poison arrows. One study reports 80% of wounded animals with a bow recover. Thats good news. And like somebody said, the scavengers that feed on a carcass have to eat too. Speaking of Muzzy, I remember when I first saw their very first ads in Western Bowhunter in 84 or 85 I suppose. They were really weird looking at the time with the large snout. People looked at them and said you could see that with a tip that large they wouldn't penetrate. And I suppose somebody tried some and had a fluke hit. I remember Muz saying at the shows he would have to trip people to try to slow them down at his booth. It seems they didn't start selling much until the 90s, he must have tripped enough people to get enough using them so the penetration myth was stopped. The point is what people perceive as logical is not always so. Reminds me of the test I still see people refer to when comparing a &quot;cut on contact&quot; head with a tip like mine. The reason I put cut on contact like that is when I push my head through paper I see the tip make a neat &quot;X&quot;. Seems like it is cutting to me. With four edges it cuts an X whereas a 2 edge tip cuts a - . Anyway, the test I refer to is where a traditional 2 blade is pushed through a hide and the force is measured, and then a chisel tip is pushed through and the force is measured. The 2 blade wins and it takes a lot of force to get the chisel tip through. Problem is it is a static test instead of dynamic, and that makes a big difference. The next time you hear somebody mention that test, ask them if they will put a hide on and let you shoot at them with the chisel tip with less force than was required to push it through the hide. If somebody ever takes you up on that, call me, I want to watch. But back to the subject at hand. As far as 5shots test, it is true that the test medium wasn't an animal. Unless everybody chips in for a test herd of goats I doubt that will change. One way to look at it, Quincy, is there are 3 possibilities of the tests validity. The test is easier than a live animal, the same as a live animal, or harder than a live animal. All there is, is speculation both ways. Call me biased, but at first glance it seems like a reasonable try 5shot. I would be curious how a Rocky TI would test, which is a bit similar to mine, and how a Steelhead 100 would fare, with the blade tips. Frankly I think if deflection was very easy on an animal you would hear of a good number of reports with those heads. The reason I mentioned the email on the other thread was, while we are theorizing, to raise the possibility of bad arrow flight at short range. I believe, however, that Shane said he had fixed it. I can tell you I was so amazed when he emailed me that info that I quizzed him then and later I sent another email wondering about it and he said it was the same and his bow was tuned. So you can understand when the only guy who has ever had arrow flight like that comes up as the only guy that had mentioned deflection. Shane, I hope you are not one of those &quot;really unlucky dudes&quot;. But I still don't see evidence of more than one deer where an arrow looked like it MIGHT have deflected, and if the animal turned it just went where it was pointed. The first doe, for instance, in the email sounded like a perfectly performing broadhead. Read the email again. If I remember correctly, on a quartering shot, the arrow nicked the ham and came out behind the front shoulder. How does an arrow deflect on a quartering shot and come out exactly where it should?? I think there may also be a reference to a severe or extreme angle or something. At any rate, what was later posted about the first doe was different, after, as Shane put it, he got to thinking. Reminds me of shooting pool, think long and think wrong. LOL Memories of a misspent youth. Just kidding, pool is a great teacher of physics. Anyway, I still don't see on the last deer evidence of deflection. Anybody who has seen the results of my head will tell you there is plenty of evidence of where they go, even if they were deflecting. An outfitter in Colorado called me yesterday to say some hunters from Vegas took a couple of big mule deer and he had never seen such holes. He wanted to know about them and gave me the number of a big shop by him so they could get some. Thats mostly how I sold heads this year, word of mouth. The guys in Vegas got their heads from a shop that learned about them from some Jersey guys, who I suspect were there gambling and stopped in. My heads are also doing great everywhere, including Canada, where distributors tried them this year and are itching to get them next year. And I just spoke to Center Sports in Columbia Ct, who sold hundreds of packs this year. I asked him about reports and deflection. He said no deflection problem reported, just field point flight and dead animals with big holes in them. Thats been the standard response. So will I change my heads? Maybe. But I have had people tell me in a threatening manner not to change a thing. If I do change them I hope they were kidding, but they seemed rather serious. But the good thing is my design is the best because my blade locking system allows me to make a head as long or short, skinny or fat or whatever shape I want, and my blades as thick as I please. Other designs have inherent limits. If I want I can easily put a gooseneck on my head, and I might, not saying I will, but I might even if there is absolutely no deflection problem. If people fancy the looks for whatever imagined reason. Kind of like a woman with a nightie, nothing is really different but it seems better. Well, I think I ended up giving you all a nickels worth, hope you don't get eyestrain, and have a nice Thanksgiving, the Owl.

Oldhootowl,
Thanx for the post. That really helped me. Now that we have more feedback (concider the source...yeah, but I trust you) we can can look at a larger sampling.
MY fear was that I heard VERY little about these heads from people that actually USED them. Then the only reports were the same as mine. I honestly beleive that my animal could have, or was turning AS the head hit him...a no win for ANY head.
Like I said, your heads have outpenetrated ANY head I have tried (including steel force, and Shockwave and Muzzy).
To be honest though, I am looking at going to a slightly heavier head next year (going from CX 200 to 300, and from 60-65 lbs...need a little more head weight for proper spine). I would LOVE to see a SLIGHTLY longer Slick Trick....but then again, 32 degrees IS a pretty steep shot.
I can't say a slick trick is LESS likely to deflect....but can say ALL heads CAN deflect. making it a TOUCH longer would make me feel better. And if you have read many of my posts, you know that I think CONFIDENCE is more important than anything else when it comes to accuracy.
Thanx for making an inovative head!!!
I have re-concidered, and WILL try the head again for our late Wisconsin bow season...wish me luck!