Is a pass through really the best thing.
 

I was talking with a friend of mine who is in his 70s. He did some hunting way back when like in the 50s or somewhere around that time. He told me 50 pounds was to much for deer hunting. I told him mine was set at 68 pounds. He told me that high and you get a pass through with little damage. he said if the arrows stays in it moves around while the deer runs doing alot of damage to the organs. I wonder if this could be that back then they used recurves or trad. bows with low weight and did not really deal with pass throughs much.
I have always been told a pass through is the best thing. Two holes twice the bleeding. Am i wrong. Or is he just an old fart who is still in the 50s. :s13:

You are correct-two holes to lose blood is better than one with an arrow stuck in it any day

Look at it this way ,you shoot a milk jug full of water,two holes are going to drain it quicker than one. Drain um Dry..... then start the fryyyer..lol

Definitely two holes, especially from a tree stand, where ideally one hole is low on the body allowing that blood to come out and create great blood trails.

The old man has his point. The animal will still be bleeding internally, even if it isn't pumping out, and it's gonna tear stuff up while it's in there. I would rather have the passthrough though. Darn sure they'll die plenty fast, but you'll have the added advantage of a better blood trail if they run somewhere hard to see 'em.

what i thought. Thanks guys

On a pass through, you'll likely find a reusable arrow. :biggrin: Most of the time I don't get a pass through the arrow gets snapped off.

Pass thru, ALWAYS, end of discussion.

True i am down 4 out of 12 new arrows already. One broke from going throw the shed one broke from hitting the ground and i lost two. There 175 a dozen plus two had broadheads at 8 bucks a peice. :pcwhack:

In 3 out of your 4 cases, dont miss and you would only be down 1 arrow. ;)