If you have adequate oomph to get enough penetration i would think bigger is better to a certain point.

I'm with you on this one c903. I believe shot placement is paramont to a quick kill and speedy recovery. I don't care if you have a broadhead with a 3" cutting diameter, If you miss the vitals the deer may die but it will not die quickly.

It is also my opinion that a larger head may give the misconception that it is in fact more lethal to an inexperienced bow hunter. A seasoned bowhunter knows the importance of shot placement and bases his actions appropiately. If a shot isn't there, it isn't there. A lesser experienced hunter may force the shot because of the "new dandy mangle it heads".

Technology can only do so much. It is up to the hunter to decide when to shoot and when not to. When I shoot I'm looking for penetration first and foremost. I'm confident I can place the arrow where it needs to be and I want to inflict sufficent damage while still acheveing ample penetration.

The main point is always shot placement BUT things can happen out of our control and the hsot may not hit where we intended. Thats is part of the game. I think if a hunter can take advantage of something that increases their chances in one of those less than idea cases they have the right to use it.

My main points are this.

If you want to use the big heads make sure you have enough KE to use them to get full penetration.

Shot placement is always a key no matter what you use

blade sharpness is a major key and is often overlooked.

always use a well tuned bow & arrow combo.

I have used broadheads that have 4 blades, 3 blades, fixed, mechanical, etc. and they all will work. I see no issue with them in general. The real issue is if the company makes claims about their products that are bogus or the hunter things a 2" hole will kill anything no matter where you hit the thing. In my opinion these people really don't care about the sport & only want to fling arrows no matter what the outcome is. It dosn't really matter what style of broadhead they use. They will still continue to do stupid things.

I generaly liek a normal fixed blade head such as the Rocky Mountain Ti-100 or Ironhead 100. They work, have 1-1/8 cutting diamters, and they penetrate like a hot knife in butter. Thats all I need but then again a lot of people want something else & if they play by the rules of the other designs I have no problem with it.

When I drop the string - deer survival is the last thing on my mind. I want the "wound" to be terminal - there is no other option at that point. If a persons setup permits it - there is NO such thing as overkill in this sport IMO.

Every time I hear that argument presented, it gets more and more absurd. Change for the sake of change. Bah!

Is writing with a ballpoint pen BETTER than writing with a quill? No. Just different. In fact, writing with the quill pen might even be better. More thought and personal attention brought to bear on what is being written, rather than the sloppy, careless penmanship you often see with the ballpoint.

I like getting e-mails from my friends. But even better is getting a handwritten letter in the mail. There's something much more warm and personal in a handwritten letter. Which is better? Speed and convenience is great but, sometimes, 'better' goes far beyond speed and convenience.

On it's own ground, the 30-30 isn't any less accurate and deadly than a 7 mag. A deer shot with the 7 mag isn't any deader than the one shot with the 30-30. And the 30-30 probably leaves more edible meat!

The deer killed with a selfbow and 1-inch wide stone pointed, wood arrow isn't any less dead than one killed with a 350 fps, 2.5" wide mechanically tipped carbon arrow. But the guy that killed his deer with a bow he made himself, with arrows he made himself and with stone points he made himself... he has put a lot of HIMSELF into his kill. What has the guy with the 350 fps carbon arrow put into his kill. Mostly money. Which way is BETTER? Well, I know which one gets my vote.

"NEW" does not mean "BETTER". It doesn't even necessarily mean "needed" or "desirable." Even as crippled up as I am, you couldn't run fast enough to give me half the junk on the archery shop shelves today.[:'(]

Alright, enough soapbox BS.[&:]

Back the the original question though, NO! Broadheads that leave holes in the deer big enough to step through are not needed. Nor do I think they are even desirable. Again, a smaller cutting broadhead put in the right place will kill the deer just as dead and not ruin quite as much meat. IMO, cutting diameters over 1.5" are overkill.

Anything that adds to the killing effectiveness of the head with out sacrificing the ability to put the head where it needs to be is a good thing. You can't regulate stupidity. Unless its blatantly false advertising, you can't blame a broadhead manufacturer that makes a perfect fine and very lethal head, when someone doesn't use it under the correct situation. I believe I would have found a couple deer a little faster had they been hit with a huge cutting head, but I am not willing to trade my confidence in the head I do use for when I hit bone. If I have to trail the deer 40 yds or 70 yds, I am still going to find a dead deer.

This is America, the land of the innovations and inventions that put us very much ahead of the rest of the world If you'd like to stay with tried and true products for bowhunting, that's fine by me but don't try to stop or make light of changes that are coming, popularity will weed the bad ones out. Like my dad said "if you don't want to run with the dogs, stay on the porch and piss with the pups"
Personally, I don't shoot mechanicals because of the price of nearly $10.00 or more each, but I won't hold it against you if you do. I still have a bunch of fixed blade heads that work fine and are very much reusable.
Shoulder shots with high K.E. set ups and tough heads are very lethal, it's been proven. Most all by accident and very few deliberate, I normally don't go there myself either but want the insurance if I do.

C903 I can see that you're the kind of person that just can't let things go aren't you. You ask what's necessary well if you want to go that far non of the modern era archery equipment is necessary, but I bet that you still shoot a compound don't you. It's like everything else ,do I need 77 channels on my TV, do I need air conditioning in my house and the list could go on for ever. All of these things are luxuries not necessities. So I guess my answer to your question is no these things aren't necessary but if I can blow a 3 inch whole through a deer instead of a 1.5 inch whole why not.

Yeah, right. I just love that one, too.

Where is 'innovation' heading? Ease and convenience! Then they have the audacious GALL to call their crap 'Xtreme'! ROTFLMAO

What is Xtreme sports? Wild and crazy people doing things that the majority would never even attempt. What in the H-E-double hockeysticks is extreme about doing what everyone else is, and using the easiest stuff you can get your hands on in order to to kill a deer with an arrow?

Traditional has more right to call themselves Xtreme Bowhunters than the compound side. And the primitive guys should have the title all to themselves!

If anybody is staying on the porch and pissing with the pups, it's the guys who slobber over all the latest hooha! LOL

I agree with Arthur that all you really need is a 2 sticks,a string and a sharp rock to kill a deer but what's wrong with having a 300fps blow a 3 inch whole through a deer. Nothing I say.