Davoh

I'm not trying to debunk anything, just expressing a VERY VALID concern with their method of testing....

I can't decide if this is true independent science, or a clever marketing scheme.

Case in point.
Broadhead Myth Busters: Part II

I personally have a problem with sponsored parties doing "Scientific Studies" of different brands and types of products...and then playing it off as an independent article.Call me a cynic, and I'll even own up to it, but I just can't shake the thought that those conducting the"experiment" could have possibly designed the"experiment" specifically to highlight a desired outcome. NOT AN ACCUSATION, merely an expression of a fear.

Seems like if this were a truely independent test for the good of all bowhunters, the tests would have been more wide ranging, and the results would have read somethingless brand specific...(ie... blade tipped, 3-blade expandable broadheads).

I canaccept the "TCV" explanation and the theory that more cut tissue bleeds more.(seems like common sense to me), but what happens when bones get in the way??? I'm not trying to debunk anything, just expressing a VERY VALID concern with their method of testing....

Personally I'd like to see some set ups like on the real MythBusters where they suspend ribcages in the gel as it sets, to provide an adequate analog of a deer's anatomy.

Dubbya

Very interesting tought, I can't say that I disagree... By their statements you should use the largest diameter broadhead that you can and still get it to pass all the way through the body cavity and stop at the bone on the other side. I'm not buying it... I love my blood trails.

mauser06

i agree with dwd. arrows kill by cutting vitals; lung, heart, vains, arteries etc. bullets kill by shock and trauma + a hole through all that. the more energy transfered with a bullet the better..the harder it hits and more damage it does. arrows dont have alot of energy to start with. comparing 2000-3000lbs of KE of a typical deer rifle to 35-70 of a typical bowhunting bow. theres just no energy TO transfer with an arrow. i much rather have a arrow slice and dice and pass through giving me 2 holes in the cavity of an animal than not have a pass through. just my thoughts. i just rather watch my arrow zip right through and be stuck in the ground.

Davoh

Actually the impression I got was that they were saying you wanted a pass through, but not stuck 6 inches into the dirt or tree afterwards... and I can buy that.

And you can even plan fairly accurately for that, providing the arrow doesnt strike bone.

Just bothers me that the "Experiment" was funded by Grim Reaper.

"The testing was funded by Grim Reaper Broadheads. The goal was to determine broadhead performance against a number of criteria including; integrity, penetration and dependability."

I suppose maybe it shouldn't.


I just took some of the wind outta my own sails by reading part I.... I had completely missed it before. Part I did make mention of Shoulder blades and ribcages being cast into the gel.... my mistake.... perhaps we'll see the results from that test in a "Part II"???

Germ

My test is on my wall and in my freezer!!

nwochuck

Remember with 25,000 dollars you can make pumpkin the deadlist squash there is.

davidmil

It's all simply a smoke and mirrors add. They throw so much garbage at you to confuse you. They have the audacity to say, remember when carbons first came out people poo pooed them. Well that was because the first carbons were really pretty crappy at times. Then he tries to tell us the makers of bullets figured out long ago it's best to expend all the energy in a deer. Duh, that's because bullets kill by SHOCK and tissue distruction, not by hemmoraging like an arrow. It's a total add campaign thats twisting the facts to suit their product. It's totally bogus. A truly independent test would tell us the names of these other broadheads they used. And Wade Nolan, come on people.... he's...well never mind. Let's say he's selling himself on this one. Oh did you notice. To give you more Shock and Awe they even mentioned they used a $70,000camera to photo the arrows. I guess they failed to tell you they borrowed that and it's reuseable. They mixed up some putty, grabbed some rusty broadheads and shot a few arrows and photographed it before 5 o'clock so they could get the camera back to the rental place.

ArrowMike

PROOF'S IN THE PUDDING (JELLO)

FBI spec. ballistic gelatin was chosen for testing because it replicates animal flesh/muscle. Let’s say you’re looking for a pass-through on that deer. Do you know how far it is from side to side in the kill zone on an adult whitetail? When shot in the chest, about 13-14 inches of penetration will give you a pass-through on an adult buck or doe. I bet you thought it was a bigger number…its not. In our testing we were shooting through green deer hide and into a 6”X 6” solid block of ballistic gelatin 20 inches long. The first 14 inches replicates the chest of a deer. Penetration of more than 14 inches is a pass-through.

In reality if a whitetail is shot in the chest an arrow passes through a number of organs that are less dense than muscle…lungs for example. So actual penetration on a live deer may be a bit more than the gelatin we choose for testing. The best thing about the Mil. Spec. ballistic gelatin is that it offered a uniform standard for each broadhead test. The comparisons are accurate. Grim Reaper Razortip averaged 14.14 inches of penetration…that’s a pass-through.

This also bothers me what if you shoot a hog, elk, mule deer, moose, ect. I would have to say by there test it would fail. Hogs are tougher then white tail(Because of grizzle layer). The other are bigger than whitetail. So Just don’t shoot any thing bigger then a whitetail deer.

And I do believe that if you want you could prove just about any thing by using the right scenario. Now im not saying weather this is a good broadhead or not. But I don’t believe it’s the best thing since sliced bread!

Canuck_2

All other concerns aside, this procedure does NOT follow acceptable scientific study procedures. The article simply appears to be a poorly disguised advertisement for Grim Reaper and numerous assumptions & poorly thought-out claims are made. I equate this type of advertising to the propaganda animal rights fanatics spread to gain converts.

When a scientific experiment is undertaken, it is not to prove thatyour belief in something is irrefutable. Rather, it is to test whether outcomes either support or do not support your original hypothesis. All variables must be tightly controlled and experimental procedures must be accurately measureable.

I actually saw this article a few days ago and just shook my head. Grim Reapers lost my respect immediately, regardless of whether they have a good product or not.

mez

In the scientific community it would not be considered independant research. The author would have to attach a disclaimer stating that he had a vested financial interest in the company. Were he trying to publish this as science the reviewers would have thrown it away. It is an advertisement/propaganda.

Anyone that has published a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal would find the said claims quite amusing.