HuntingNet.com Forums

HuntingNet.com Forums (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/)
-   Bowhunting (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/bowhunting-18/)
-   -   cutting diameter (https://www.huntingnet.com/forum/bowhunting/272241-cutting-diameter.html)

Bradkoz 11-06-2008 08:54 PM
cutting diameter
 
is it me or are people just blind to the fact that a 2" cut on a 2 blade broadhead cuts the same amount of tissue as a 1" cut four blade head. this is just an example , just seems like everyone is going crazy over the huge cuts and wounds. the cut is whatever the widest point of the blade is thats all. angle of entry and exit is what makes it look differnt because you slice long ways as it goes through.

just venting alittle , but really does nobody else see this trend of talking about big cuts esp from rage and undertaker users.

Bradkoz 11-06-2008 08:58 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
also why is it called a diameter when there are only two points, thats a slice or line. i wish they rated broadheads by cutting surface, end alot of hype on some heads since theyd be equal to alot of other heads.

Bryan7219 11-06-2008 09:10 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
yes its cuts the same amount of tissue but over a wider area which may be of importance depending on shot placement. i have been using 2 blade vortex broadheads with a 2.5 inch cut for the last ten years and i have noticed a big difference compared with my first ten years. i know there are other variable'sbut i truly believe they give me a better chance on a less than perfect hit.

GMMAT 11-07-2008 03:02 AM
RE: cutting diameter
 


So the question is......WOuld you rather be shot with this......4 blades @ 2" ea.....for a total cutting surface of 8"........

or....

ONE blade that's 8" long?

Both wounds are going to cut completely through you.

im ocd 11-07-2008 04:57 AM
RE: cutting diameter
 
How about the Slick Trick mag 1 1/8'' four blade 2.25'' total cut
Or the Spitfire 1 1/2'' three blade, total cut is 2.25''
I have both in the quiver and I expect a copious blood trail either way. [8D]

annika3 11-07-2008 07:50 AM
RE: cutting diameter
 
This has been gone over numerous times before but heare we go again.

Cutting diameter = the size of the wound channel

Cutting surface = the amount of damage within the wound channel (see above)

What's more important? That, I guess, is open for debate but think about it this way.

Lets take 3 Bh's and compare.

Slick Trick Standard:

1" Cutting diameter
2" Cutting surface

This means you will get 2" of surface cutting damage within a 1" cutting area

Rage 2-blade

2" Cutting diameter
2" Cutting surface

This means you will get 2" of cutting surface within a 2" cutting area

Broadhead xyz

1" Cutting diameter
4" Cutting surface (8 blades)

This means you will get 4" of cutting surface within a 1" cutting area

Example 1 and 3 both give you a 1" cutting area but by simply adding more blades example 3 has 4" of cutting surface. Does this make this head superior to example 1? According to what you are saying your answer should be yes. But in each bh example you are still obtaining the same 1" cutting diameter.

Comparingexamples 1 and 2 you are getting a much larger wound channel(cutting diameter)in example 2 (Rage) and they same amount of damage (cutting surface) as example1(Slick Trick). The big difference is that with the Slick Trick all the damage is occuring in a small 1" wound channel compared to the 2" wound channel of the Rage.

Northport buckslayr 11-07-2008 09:26 AM
RE: cutting diameter
 
I am still not convinced that you get more blood and damage with a two blade rage than a MUzzy MX-4, or a slick trick magnum. Why is it better to have the cutting area made thinner and longer? I think its just advertising.

Northport buckslayr 11-07-2008 09:30 AM
RE: cutting diameter
 
Another thought, although this might be irrelevent with todays high speed set-ups, woudnt a longer cutting diameter create more friction and thus less penetration?

Bradkoz 11-09-2008 10:58 AM
RE: cutting diameter
 
i think sometimes the long cut might be better at hitting more things but at the same time if the blades hit in the opposite direction (across instead of up and down or whatever) it wont make much difference. i really am not saying one its better im just saying i think people make it out to be way more then it really is.

fingerz42 11-09-2008 11:03 AM
RE: cutting diameter
 
Ok. Wow. Well lets see. If I have something that cuts a 2 inch slice, and I have something else that cuts a 1 inch slice, the 2inch slice will cut so much more tissue and create a bigger wound channel and a much easier blood trail. A 2 inch cut through a deers heart will expell alot more blood than a 1 inch cut through a deers heart.

YES, it will create more friction as well, but thats what happens with such a devastating wound.

scooterdo75 11-09-2008 11:27 AM
RE: cutting diameter
 
I think all the cutting diameters are overated period. Im pretty sure a field point throught the heart would kill a deer just as dead as a 2" diameter. (just harder to track and less gory.)

vichris 11-09-2008 11:51 AM
RE: cutting diameter
 
ORIGINAL: annika3

This has been gone over numerous times before but heare we go again.

Cutting diameter = the size of the wound channel

Cutting surface = the amount of damage within the wound channel (see above)

What's more important? That, I guess, is open for debate but think about it this way.

Lets take 3 Bh's and compare.

Slick Trick Standard:

1" Cutting diameter
2" Cutting surface

This means you will get 2" of surface cutting damage within a 1" cutting area

Rage 2-blade

2" Cutting diameter
2" Cutting surface

This means you will get 2" of cutting surface within a 2" cutting area

Broadhead xyz

1" Cutting diameter
4" Cutting surface (8 blades)

This means you will get 4" of cutting surface within a 1" cutting area

Example 1 and 3 both give you a 1" cutting area but by simply adding more blades example 3 has 4" of cutting surface. Does this make this head superior to example 1? According to what you are saying your answer should be yes. But in each bh example you are still obtaining the same 1" cutting diameter.

Comparingexamples 1 and 2 you are getting a much larger wound channel(cutting diameter)in example 2 (Rage) and they same amount of damage (cutting surface) as example1(Slick Trick). The big difference is that with the Slick Trick all the damage is occuring in a small 1" wound channel compared to the 2" wound channel of the Rage.


Excellent points......

I'll add one more thing into the mix. The possibility of mechanical failure. Some human/hunter caused and other Mfg caused. I've seen a fair amount of posts on some other forums about Rage using pins vs screws.

Now I'm not saying that theRage BH's aren't a good BH. Everyone knows that they have killed alot of deer. But the same can be said for alot of fixed BH's. God only knows how many deer fell to Flint or Obsidian.

The difference is that flint didn't have a commercial running every 10 min on theOutdoor channel.And if you think that advertising hype doesn't make a difference.......................... then maybe you really do think Obama is more qualified to be president than any other citizen. [:'(]

IAhuntr 11-09-2008 01:32 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
ORIGINAL: Northport buckslayr

I am still not convinced that you get more blood and damage with a two blade rage than a MUzzy MX-4, or a slick trick magnum. Why is it better to have the cutting area made thinner and longer? I think its just advertising.
From the wording of your statement, it sounds as though you haven't used bothand had a personalhands on comparison. I've shot the RM Gators (2 blade much like aRage, but without the all the hype ;)) for the better part of 8 years and have also tried different fixed heads as well. The 2 blade 2"expandable without a doubt causes more bleeding and much better blood trail provided you are shooting enough speed and a heavy enough arrow to get consistent pass-throughs. The single straight 2 inch cut seems to open them up much more than a 3 or 4 blade which creates flaps that seem to close up easier. Quite honestly I've never had a fixed blade blood trail that compares to the Gator blood trail.

Look at the pic and tell me which looks likewould bleeds better, the gaping hole of the Gator on the bottom or the healed up Montec 3 blade fixed blade hole from a complete pass thru 10 days prior which can be seen above the Gator hole? I honestly couldn't imagine the Gator/Rage style hole being able to close and heal up at all.
Of course shot placement had everything to do with this specific deer not being mortally wounded from the first shot, but the photo should show the substantial difference in wound channels between the two heads you are comparing.

GMMAT 11-09-2008 01:45 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
Here's another wound channel comparison.

Which one of these do you think would cause more damage?

WesternMdHardwoods 11-09-2008 02:26 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
ORIGINAL: IAhuntr

ORIGINAL: Northport buckslayr

I am still not convinced that you get more blood and damage with a two blade rage than a MUzzy MX-4, or a slick trick magnum. Why is it better to have the cutting area made thinner and longer? I think its just advertising.
From the wording of your statement, it sounds as though you haven't used bothand had a personalhands on comparison. I've shot the RM Gators (2 blade much like aRage, but without the all the hype ;)) for the better part of 8 years and have also tried different fixed heads as well. The 2 blade 2"expandable without a doubt causes more bleeding and much better blood trail provided you are shooting enough speed and a heavy enough arrow to get consistent pass-throughs. The single straight 2 inch cut seems to open them up much more than a 3 or 4 blade which creates flaps that seem to close up easier. Quite honestly I've never had a fixed blade blood trail that compares to the Gator blood trail.

Look at the pic and tell me which looks likewould bleeds better, the gaping hole of the Gator on the bottom or the healed up Montec 3 blade fixed blade hole from a complete pass thru 10 days prior which can be seen above the Gator hole? I honestly couldn't imagine the Gator/Rage style hole being able to close and heal up at all.
Of course shot placement had everything to do with this specific deer not being mortally wounded from the first shot, but the photo should show the substantial difference in wound channels between the two heads you are comparing.



I gotta question?? How in the world did that deer live through that first shot??? Wow.. Im not sure but from this angle it looks like it should have been high double lung???

SwampCollie 11-09-2008 02:42 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
ORIGINAL: GMMAT

Both wounds are going to cut completely through you.
Not necessarily....... as we debated fervently in a thread earlier last week.

Personally though... I wouldn't care to stand infront of either of them, and if you shot me in the right place, I'm sure I'd lay down and die just as dead no matter which you chose.

goherd1111 11-09-2008 02:46 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
ORIGINAL: WesternMdHardwoods

ORIGINAL: IAhuntr

ORIGINAL: Northport buckslayr

I am still not convinced that you get more blood and damage with a two blade rage than a MUzzy MX-4, or a slick trick magnum. Why is it better to have the cutting area made thinner and longer? I think its just advertising.
From the wording of your statement, it sounds as though you haven't used bothand had a personalhands on comparison. I've shot the RM Gators (2 blade much like aRage, but without the all the hype ;)) for the better part of 8 years and have also tried different fixed heads as well. The 2 blade 2"expandable without a doubt causes more bleeding and much better blood trail provided you are shooting enough speed and a heavy enough arrow to get consistent pass-throughs. The single straight 2 inch cut seems to open them up much more than a 3 or 4 blade which creates flaps that seem to close up easier. Quite honestly I've never had a fixed blade blood trail that compares to the Gator blood trail.

Look at the pic and tell me which looks likewould bleeds better, the gaping hole of the Gator on the bottom or the healed up Montec 3 blade fixed blade hole from a complete pass thru 10 days prior which can be seen above the Gator hole? I honestly couldn't imagine the Gator/Rage style hole being able to close and heal up at all.
Of course shot placement had everything to do with this specific deer not being mortally wounded from the first shot, but the photo should show the substantial difference in wound channels between the two heads you are comparing.



I gotta question?? How in the world did that deer live through that first shot??? Wow.. Im not sure but from this angle it looks like it should have been high double lung???
To not havebeen afatal shot and to have been a complete pass through, the first shot would have had to be above the spine and through the backstraps. The spine is lower that alot of people realize.

WesternMdHardwoods 11-09-2008 03:05 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
ORIGINAL: goherd1111

To not havebeen afatal shot and to have been a complete pass through, the first shot would have had to be above the spine and through the backstraps. The spine is lower that alot of people realize.
Goherd~~ Thats about the only way I could figure a NON- Fatal shot as well. I am looking at it like the picture below which would put the arrow at the top of lungs, but I guess I am off by a few inches???? I honestly would never put the spine lower then I have pictured here myself, but WOW!!!!....now this pic aint exact but you get my drift...!!

IAhuntr 11-09-2008 06:42 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
Yeah, the shot is quite the conversation piece. Some of you may remember this deer from last year.I took himlast seasonbut he waswas shot by my brother in law 10 days earlier and survived.Actuallythe pass thruwas rightbelow and partially nickedthe spine butsuprisingly onlybarely clipped the top of one lung. He had initally dropped to the ground, but after a few seconds regained his senses and jumped up and ran off.In normal circumstances the lungs extend up high enough on both sides of the spine where it should have been a double lung, but perhaps due to his ducking the shot and exhaling while doing so, only one lung was clipped. Maybe he was a smoker! In any case, there was a visible wound channel in the chest cavity just below the spineupon field dressing and one lung was pale with a bit of clot at the top. He was remarkably well healed for only 10 days.
I hadencountered him just +7 days after the first shot chasing does. At +10 days he came into a grunt call all bristled up looking to fight. I'd have tospeculatethat 99.9% of the time the first shot would have been lethal. We were both quite happy he didn't run off and die and I was able to get another crack at him. We were also in disbelief that he survived.

The hole on the opposite side is a bit higher than the exit wound pictured, buta deers spine is low in his neck but not so much in his body:

WesternMdHardwoods 11-09-2008 06:50 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
ORIGINAL: IAhuntr

Yeah, the shot is quite the conversation piece. Some of you may remember this deer from last year.I took himlast seasonbut he waswas shot by my brother in law 10 days earlier and survived.Actuallythe pass thruwas rightbelow and partially nickedthe spine butsuprisingly onlybarely clipped the top of one lung. He had initally dropped to the ground, but after a few seconds regained his senses and jumped up and ran off.In normal circumstances the lungs extend up high enough on both sides of the spine where it should have been a double lung, but perhaps due to his ducking the shot and exhaling while doing so, only one lung was clipped. Maybe he was a smoker! In any case, there was a visible wound channel in the chest cavity just below the spineupon field dressing and one lung was pale with a bit of clot at the top. He was remarkably well healed for only 10 days.
I hadencountered him just +7 days after the first shot chasing does. At +10 days he came into a grunt call all bristled up looking to fight. I'd have tospeculatethat 99.9% of the time the first shot would have been lethal. We were both quite happy he didn't run off and die and I was able to get another crack at him. We were also in disbelief that he survived.

The hole on the opposite side is a bit higher than the exit wound pictured, buta deers spine is low in his neck but not so much in his body:


Yeah I just know if I would have made that first shot and couldnt find the deer I would be standing in the woods like this.....[&o]!!!

Centaur 1 11-10-2008 04:12 AM
RE: cutting diameter
 
ORIGINAL: GMMAT



So the question is......WOuld you rather be shot with this......4 blades @ 2" ea.....for a total cutting surface of 8"........

or....

ONE blade that's 8" long?

Both wounds are going to cut completely through you.
" In my opinion" your on the right track. What you have to consider is the shape of the wound, there's really no such thing as "cutting diameter", the hole's not round. A three bladed head will give you a triangular hole and a four bladed head will give you a square hole. What I feel needs to be compared is the anount of surface area within that square or triangle. As an example I did the math forfour popular size heads; a 1" four blade, a 1 1/8" four blade, a 1 1/8" three bladed head and a 1 1/4" three blade head.

1 1/8" 3-blade head; 1.687" of blade cutting surface and the triangular hole has .474 sq in of surface area.

1 1/4" 3-blade; 1.875" blade cutting surface and .583 sq in surface area wound.

1" 4-blade; 2" blade cutting surface and .5 sq in surface area within the square wound channel.

1 1/8" 4-blade; 2.25" cutting surface and .632 sq in wound area.

An eight bladed hole like in the illustration would only increase the surface area minimally over a four bladed head and even though they give a large slitI worry about the hole made by a 2-blade clogging up.

This is how I understand the explanation that I got from Gary at Slick Tricks, I shoot the 1 1/8" Slick Trick Magnums.

Bradkoz 11-10-2008 07:18 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
im still cutting 2"s into the heart(using your example) with a 1" head with four blades

put a jug of water up and shoot it with either head i bet it drains at the same speed, because there is 2"s of cut in it either way.

this was in reply to a post on the first page sorry

chrowski 11-10-2008 07:56 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
ORIGINAL: Northport buckslayr

I am still not convinced that you get more blood and damage with a two blade rage than a MUzzy MX-4, or a slick trick magnum. Why is it better to have the cutting area made thinner and longer? I think its just advertising.

LOL....if you're so confident it's just hype give it a try! Prove yourself correct by comparing your Muzzy to the Rage 2 blade. I'd bet my whole bow setup you'd either be impressed about the rage 2blade or you'd be a liar.
[disclaimer: rage 2blade is the only expandable I've ever shot, this statement only reflects the performance of the rage vs my old muzzy 4 blade and thunderhead 3 blades...feel free to donate other expandables to me if you'd like to hear more of my opinions : ) ]

vichris 11-10-2008 08:13 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
What some forget here is that ANY mechanical (not just Rage) is always going to have a certain amount of failure because it is a mechanical. Entropy, Mfg defects, poor design, human/hunter error, mechanical failure, are all part of the equation when using any product that moves.....or mechanical. Add into the mix that this little machine is being used on an animal that is very wary, has great senses, is extremely quick, and can be very hard to kill. Also bone structure and incident angles need to be considered.

The BIG problem with Rage is that their product is overly hyped (advertised) particularly on TV. IMHO they have set themselves up to be criticized.......some unfairly.......some because its the truth.

You gotta admit you rarely see these kind of threads concerning any other BH.

Just my 2 cents

Northport buckslayr 11-11-2008 01:55 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
Chrowski, I am just expressing my opinion and I never claimed to be stating a fact. Calling me a liar because you have a different opinion is silly and immature. I believe freely expressing an opinion is part of the first amendment.

Rocky Mountain (same company as Rage, whose fixed blade Ironhead I have had great success with) has been selling snypers and gators for years and they havent been as big a deal as Rage, so I still believe the popularity is due greatly to advertising.


chrowski 11-11-2008 06:10 PM
RE: cutting diameter
 
ORIGINAL: Northport buckslayr

Chrowski, I am just expressing my opinion and I never claimed to be stating a fact. Calling me a liar because you have a different opinion is silly and immature. I believe freely expressing an opinion is part of the first amendment.

Rocky Mountain (same company as Rage, whose fixed blade Ironhead I have had great success with) has been selling snypers and gators for years and they havent been as big a deal as Rage, so I still believe the popularity is due greatly to advertising.
Read it again. I never called you a liar :eek: ...I suggested you would be afterusing an expanable broadhead, such as the rage 2blade,if you said there was no significant improvement in cutting damage.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:44 PM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.