This thinking is actually a little misleading and incorrect as far as effectiveness of cutting diameter vs cutting surface.

Take a veryextreme example and you'll see.........(Hopefully my math is right? LOL cause this is off the top of my head)

If you take a 2 blade mechanical with an absolutely crazy cutting diameter of say 12"........yep 1 foot.[:-]and then compared that to an 1 1/4" fixed head with 10 blades on it for a total cutting SURFACE of 12.5" , I'm gonna argue that the 2 blade with a 12" cutting diameter is going to inflict MORE damage than a head with a smaller cutting diameter but with even more cutting surface as shown in my example. I don't think anyone visualizing that scenario would argue the point.

You could put 20 blades on that 1 1/4" head and it's still only cutting an area 1 1/4" in any direction affecting a smaller area and potentially affectingless vessels and possibly combined organs and vital tissue.

I truly believe that it is the ability of some of these heads to reach way out laterally that makes them so effective. The big cutting diameters combined with more completely compromising organs and vessels really does make them potentially faster more effective killers. I know it's easy to say 'dead is dead" but an extra 1" of cutting width can mean the difference in real life of hitting an artery, or taking out 2 organs instead of one etc.

I will never buy the cutting surface being just as effective as cutting diameter explanation, because as soon as you extrapolate it out as far as you want it becomes clear that you can reach a point where you have a 2 blade head that could cut a deer in half, while you've simply added 10 more 1 1/4" blades to a fixed head to equal the cutting surface.

And I'm not partial to brand. Trust me on that one. I would maybe guess that I have more varied broadheads at my disposal than 99% of the members here who aren't broadhead collectors. Just lots of dead animals and some educated ideas.

Matt, that was an awesome post. I wish I had the compresive thinking skills you do. I look foward to reading your posts when there is a debatable question out there. You really lay it down, and I agree with what you said. It could make the difference between a 100+yrd bottom lung shot and a -100yrd shot bottome lung top heart shot.

Thanks for posting.

I use mechanicals,and I can tune a bow.I am not a fan of the Rage heads(for me),there,I said it.[8D]I used them last year and it seemed to me that they were extremely noisy in flight,and not quite as forgiving as my Steelheads.I love the Rocket Steelheads that are only a 1 1/8" cut and most deer I have shot with them were down within 30 yards.


The original poster didn't like the idea of checking or worrying about his head opening or whatever other reasons.What I don't like about fixed heads is their unpredictabilty when I lean out around a treeand torque the grip on my bow or I have a pretty good cross wind.Fixed heads do not react like field tips,regardless of how they tuned,especially when using lighter arrows.A quality expandable will react almost the same as a field tip.

Bottom line is,I have more confidence in a quality MATCHED mechanical.

I beg to differ a little bit.

Cutting diameter = size of the damage
Cutting surface = the amount of damage being done within the cutting diameter.

Where I agree the amount of cutting surface (damage)is roughly the same the difference iswhere that damage is occuring.

On a 2" cutting diameter head the damage (cutting surface)is occuring in a large 2" cuttingarea (cutting diameter)which will leave a large hole. On a 1" to 1 1/4" cutting diameter head all the damage (cutting surface)is being done in the smaller area (cutting diameter)which will leave a smaller hole.

Another way to look at it is by making a 8-blade 1" cutting diameter BH.

With this you would have:

Cutting diameter = 1"
Cutting Surface = 4"

The damage (cutting surface) is almost twice as much as the other heads that were talked about but the hole would look almost identical to a 4-blade 1" cutting diameter BH.

Would this BH by twice as good as other BH's? NO! Because all the damage (4" of cutting surface)isbeing done in a small area (cutting diameter).

With this being said all damage (cutting surface) is not the same. Again, you need to know where that damage is occuring (cutting diameter).

Annika ,
Read post #51.

more gory photos.


it's all about shot placement.


blood trail while deer was on a dead run. (that's like a pun!)


75 yards from the shot. You'll see the trail didn't exactly fade out.


Muzzy 3 blade 125 grain broadhead.

Matt, just like most things in life there does become a point of diminished returns. IMO 4 blades is the point of maximum returns in a broadheadand anything more than that offers no real advantage at all as your hypothetical example clearly demonstrates. Afour blade cuts what looks like an actual round hole in an animaland adding more blades would not add anything to this.

A two blade obviously only cuts in one direction and the ability to reach out there laterally only helps if there is something there to cut. A large two blade head could just as easily miss a major artery on a marginal hit as it could cut it in half. Even if that large two blade actually brushes against that artery as it passes through the animal. IMO the marginal hit argument is a moot as any because there are just as many times that a Rage could cut that artery as could a 1" 4 blade. It only gets cut if it is there to be cut and a blade passes close enough to actually cut it.



Annika, cutting surface does not refer to the amount of damage being done to the animal. It refers to the length of the actual sharpened edge of the blades all added together.An example..... A two blade broadhead with a 1" cutting diameter that is three inches long. The cutting surface of the blades is just a fraction over 6 inches but it still only cuts a 1" slit in the animal.Cutting surface means nothing as it pertains to the amount of tissue damage a broadhead can inflict to an animal except for increased penetration but even that is obviously being disproved with todays short broadheads.

Total cutting ability is a much better term for what you are describingas ittakes into account the number of blades as well as the diameterof the blades.

The only difference in a 2" two blade and a 1" four blade is the shape of the hole. I agree that the 2" two blade looks bigger because of the way that skin and muscle streches when ther is a hole in it but the amount of tissue being cut is the same.

Christine's pics show a three blade Muzzy hole that looks just as big as any rage pics I have seen posted to date.

I need to start keeping my camera in my pack. I never remember to take pics of entrance and exit holes or hearts with holes in them. [8D]

That's why my broadhead of choice this year has 3 blades at a 2" cutting diameter.

Wish I still had the 4 blade 2" ones.

But see now your cutting surface thinking becomes ifs and buts depending upon blade orientation as it passes through the tissue.........I have shot lots of animals with a flotilla of different heads and I don't have any scientific proof of it other than my own eyes but as a whole I've had deer run less distance after the shot with the big stuff than the more modest 3 and 4 blade fixed heads.

Of course my thinking and style isn't for everyone either as I also have the snot in my bow set ups to shove these big things around and through animals consistently.

Sorry for screwing up your post Bigbulls.......geez you'd think after 8 years here I would know how to work all the buttons.
I wanted to hit QUOTE and hit EDIT by accident sorry man! [&o]