That's it... I'm hunting deer with my Magnus Bullheads this year!!!!

I wanted to finish the by stating that a 2" cutting diameter 2-blade and a 1" to 1 1/4" fixed will do about the same amount of damage (cutting surface) but the 2-blade damage will be in a much larger area compared to the fixed blade heads.

Shoot what you're comfortable with and good kuck to everybody in 08.

Well put.
I'm gonna shoot my ST's this yr b/c I don't want to mess with my set up. I was hoping for the new grizztrick....... spring for bear is when I will try it. I like having 4 blades.

How do you figure that tip offers more cutting surface on a rage or snyper but not on a fixed head as it pertains to how much tissue damage is being caused in the animal? Two inches is two inches regardless of what kind of tip is on the head.

Cutting surface refers to the total length of the actual sharpened part of the blades added together and indicates how easily a broadhead will cut through bone and tissue. The idea is that a broadhead with more cutting surface to diameter (3 to 1)will penetrate better due to the blades being long and slicing instead of chopping their way through an animal.

Again I have to ask how you figure this is possible. Area is area. Regardless if it is shaped like a square or long single rectangularslice. A 1" four blade will create exactly the same amount of tissue damage as a 2" two blade and 1.25" fixed 4 blade head will do exactly 20% more damage given equal depth in the animal.

I might as well post it here too.........LOL

That thinking Scott isn't quite "real life" accurate when you really get to analyzing it:

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 even though that 10 blade head is cutting more actual tissue.

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 are affecting an area that is already as affected as it's gonna get probably with 4.

I'll just leave it on the other one. These two threads are becomeing the same monster.

Did you read what I said? I saida 1"4-blade will do the same amount of damage (cutting surface) as a 2" 2-bladebut it will be in a smaller are (cutting diameter).

BUT the actual damage to the animal is considerably different with the 2 heads we're talking about.

One head, 2" 2-blade,is causing the damage over a 2" area (cutting diameter) and the other is causing that damage over a 1" area (cutting diameter).

I just think a lot of people want things very simple, so they only look at the cutting diameter of the head. Of course there is a lot more to be considerd. Overall cut is more important, but so is penetration. Is it better to have a 1" hole all the way through a deer or 12" hole only about and inch deep. That's an extreme example of course but you get the point. Rob also brings in to play the mechanics of different designs such as the snyper and rage, which further complicates the matter for most. I have a bad habit of forgeting that not eveyone is a total equipment and bowhunting nut like I am. Most just want a simple and effective setup.

After reading over the discussion again, just adding up the total cut is simplistic, because the width isn't taken into consideration.
Think of broadhead damage as taking place inside a cylinder. For example a 6 blade 1'' head would have a lot of total cut, but I doubt it would really do that much more damage than a 1'' 4 blade head, because you are cutting inside the same area (the 1'' cylinder is getting cut to pieces). However a two blade head makes a slit, or if it has a cut on contact tip an oval and could miss some tissue inside it's 2'' cylinder.
I'm an "equipment nut" too and I thinkthe 3 blade Spitfire ( 1 1/2'' 3 blade) seems like a good compromise between width of cut and slicing up the inside of the cylinder.

Exactly!

Cutting diameter is more important than cutting surface.

Imagine a12 blade broadhead with a 1" cutting diameter. That's a whopping 6" of cutting surface! But.....

You still are only affecting a 1" circle of tissue on the animal. Granted, you may have sliced the crap out of that 1" circle, but you still only affected a 1" circle on the animals vitals.

I'd rather have a big cutting diamater. You have a better chance of hitting somethingvital on a marginal shot (like clipping the liver on a paunch hit).

I'll take cutting diameter over cutting surface any day. I want to spread the damage over as large of an area as possible.

Only when comparing two broadheads with equal cutting diameter would I consider cutting surface to bea factor. For example, I'd take a 3 blade with a 2" cutting diameter over a 2 blade with a 2" cutting diameter.

The reason I don't like 2 blade broadheads very much is becuase you can't control the orientation of the blades as they pass through the animal. For example, on a marginal hit the blade might pass through vertically or horizontally. That could make the difference between hitting a vital organ and missing it.