Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Getting past the inappropriateness of the "test" of a particular broadhead, let us evaluate the necessity and advantage of using a broadhead that mangles the game. Any bowhunter having only minimal experience knows that you do not have to mangle a deer with a devastating wound to bring it down. Any sharp broadhead through the boiler room of an animal will normally do the job, regardless that it does not have a 3.5mm diameter.

The advantage of using a broadhead having just the necessary and efficient capacity to kill a deer, the types (broadheads) that have been killing animals for years, is that if the wound is not mortal and the wound is not too grave, there is a chance the deer could survive. Deer have been surviving arrow wounds for years when the wounds were not lethal wounds. In fact, such an argument (deer can often survive an arrow wound) is a defensive argument that bowhunters have had in their corner for years.

Who is willing to go out on the limb and declare that is guaranteed that such a egregious wound as recently depicted in some photos will always put the deer down within a reasonable distance and/or within an appropriate period? Not me!

I doubt any deer with such a wound which was not immediately killed or soon recovered would have much of chance to survive. If the deer did not die from blood-loss, the animal would die from a grievous infection and/or starvation, and would die a slow and horrible death. It would be merciful if the predators got the deer (animal) down and killed it quickly.

So, if such a devastating wound does not guarantee a kill or a recovery, what is the necessity and advantage of a broadhead that mangles an animal? I have a feeling that some will base the advantage on marginal hits and a better blood trail, since misses and marginal hits happen to anyone, and many hunters these day's seem to be unable to track a hit animal without a "yellow brick road" type of blood trail.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

I'll take the bait on this one & give you my opinion.

I have no problems with people shooting broadheads that can open up a really large hole. My only judgement on them is that you have to shoot a high amount of KE to have good luck with them on big game in my opinion. If your talking about mechanicals I have no issue with them out of a bow that is tuned, shooting enough KE for the cutting diameter, and finally used only with a good solid hit in the boiler room.

I also have no issue with hunters using a large bladed fixed blade head or replacable blade head. If they have a well tuned bow I think the extra cutting diameter is a good choice and could turn a marginal hit into a solid killing hit. I think a more important issue is blade sharpness!

If you feel it is unethical to use a large cutting broadhead that is your choice, other may or may not agree with it. As such you really have to do what is best for you just as they do what they feel is best for them.

As far as a mangaling broadhead I havn't seen one in that "category" since some of the early heads frm the 50's, 60's & early 70's. There was some really goofy looking ones over the years that penetrated like a rock shot from a pop gun. I have seen a few modern designs that are not good solid designs but they seem to dissappear rather fast.

I would ask this question back to you. What type of braodhead are you talking about? Exactly what is your issue? I guess I fully didn't understand the question. I have heard arguments such as your from non hunters and no one could ever explain exactly what they are talking about. Please don't take that the wrong way, I am not compairing you to anyone that is a antihunter. I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Not at all, and your opinion and questions are well justified.

If the size of the wound channel was the only issue, using a broadhead that causes a large hole (wound) to kill a deer is an individual call. If avoidable, I personally do not like to blow an overly large hole in the cape, and I do not like to destroy too much the meat or cause a lot of bone fragmentation. However, that is a "housekeeping" preference. My issue with using heads that have a cutting area grossly larger than need be, and cause wound channels greater than need be to be lethal, goes beyond the "housekeeping" aspect.

As I said, you do not have to blow a huge hole through a deer to be a lethal hit. Nor does a large wound guarantee that death will be immediate or imminent, that the animal will be recovered before it dies days later from other causes caused by a grave wound.

I consider myself a good shot, but I know that once I release the string, or just at the moment I have reached a point of no return as I am about to release the string, anything is up for grab. If the hit is off and the wound is not lethal within the time and distance that gives the greatest odds for recovery; I now want the odds in favor of the deer that he or she might recover.

Anyone that claims to be so good that they never miss, believe they will never miss, and claim that all of their hits have always been in the exact spot having the greatest odds of lethality, and therefore using a large cutting broadhead that causes extensive wounds is a moot consideration for them, also sells snake oil.

When compounds became popular, they (compound bows) put many bow shooters in the field who did not belong in the field. Then the along came compound bows with greater energy and high letoffs, which caused the inexperienced and the "speedsters" to believe that arrows now fly so fast and the trajectory is so flat they can now take shots at distances that would challenge some firearms. Now we have mechanicals that fly like fieldpoints, which has diminished the tuning skills of many shooters.

The sport sure does not now need to introduce a broadhead that will develop a mentality in the fair-weather and "quickie" hunters that the broadhead is so devastating that all they have to do is just hit the animal anywhere and it will die on the spot, or within minutes. You think not?

A sharp one shot from a well tuned bow and accurately placed in the common kill-zone.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Do you recomend that most rifle hunters should just stick to the time tested 30/30 and live with the limited accuracy and power this cartrige offers? Would you say that a 20 gauge shotgun slug has more than enough power for anyone and that the 12 guage is overkill? Would you suggest that we all write letters to each other and send them via Pony Express instead of e-mailing each other? Times change, equipment gets invented with the prospects of making a profit on it's manufacture and the idea of creating jobs for American workers. Are you still heating your house with coal, writing your letters with a quill pen, making your own soap, see where I'm going with this??
I think you're making way too much of a new product being tested in the field under average conditions by a talented hunter with lots of in the field experience that knew the outcome of the shot before it even happened;)

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

walks:

First, your use of firearm calibers and gauges is not a realistic comparison. And the coal comparison is a great one. However, if you want to go that route; would you recommend using a 3" magnum No. 4, 12 gauge with a turkey choke to shoot pheasants?

Second, I thought we were past the discussion of an inappropriate act. However, since you reintroduced some of the thread by saying,

"I think you're making way too much of a new product being tested in the field under average conditions by a talented hunter with lots of in the field experience that knew the outcome of the shot before it even happened...."

I have no choice but to reply. Bull! I have been in the sport long enough to know that talent and field experience does not guarantee anything. Why? Because the game animal and Mr. Murphy have a say in the matter.

Q: If one already knows what the outcome will be, why perform a test on a live animal? [:@]

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

I'd rather have a small cube of C-4 and just blow the thing apart.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Answer to your ?--if one already knows the outcome then it's not really a test is it?

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Gut or not to gut?

I guess you would skip that part.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Just carry a big basket and catch the meat when it comes back down.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

c903, I see your point and understand where you are coming from. I use three blade muzzy's so I am not one to really argue the point of using large broadheads that leave a devestating hole, but I can see why others use them. I think that as archery hunting progresses there are always more and more "inventions" that are intended to make harvesting a deer "easier" and making the kill "faster", the later of which is where these broadheads come into play. For instance if you are using a zwickey 2 blade you don't have much room for error on your shot and the internal damage created will not be huge but more than sufficient to kill a deer. On the other hand if you use a four blade mechanical broadhead with a 3" cutting diameter then you have a slightly greater room for error and with the extensive damage it creates will cause more damage thus (in theory) cause the deer to die faster. Granted if you are out in the stand you should be able to hit the boiler room with no problem so this should be a mute point. However, as you said, the game animal and Mr. Murphy have a say in the matter so when they decide to speak up it's nice having that little extra cutting room to swing the odds back in your favor. This is just how I interpret it.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

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

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

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.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

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.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

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.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

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.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

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.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

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.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

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.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Yeah, right.:eek: 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

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

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.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

A broadhead that "mangles" the game and a bow that shoots over 300 fps and scent lock clothing and 30 ft. high stands and on and on and on....are not neccessary and may not possess any advantage and if not utilized properly may be a disavantage. What does matter first and foremost is a knowledge of the animal and learning how to get close enough (<20 yards) to that animal in order to kill it with a well tuned bow that shoots straight arrows tipped with a broadhead.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

as long as its sharp and it meets state regs I don't a prob with it. Heck, Indians used broadheads made from rocks and they didn't starve to death, at least most of them didn't, and I am sure they didn't mind the hole in the hide since they used the hide for clothing.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

No matter what head you use? or how fast or slow your bow is, If it`s compound or a "stick and string" what ever! If your worried about an animal servival then don`t shoot! If your worried about a bad hit don`t shoot! Go back and practice![:@] untill your confident enuff to take the shot! When i pull the string on an animal within my confedent range i don`t` give a crap about his servival! I wan`t to kill him as quickly as possable and use ever advantage to do it with my equipment that i can! Weather it a big sharp broadhead or a fast bow! It would seem to me that if someone calls them self an "ethical hunter" that they would want this to be? a bad hit is the result in something going wrong. Taking a bad shot your falt or not! Wounding an animal is something no one`s want`s to do! thats why the technology today is desighed to give the hunter the ability to shot straighter, See the the sights better in low light condition`s hunters today are taking more game than ever before with the confidence that they can take and make the shot! resulting in an ethical kill! quick and clean!

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Relieved to see that there are a few that can see the forest, regardless of the trees.

RTA47:

Would you mind repeating what you just said, a little slower this time. :D

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Are you saying that you would prefer all broadheads to be a maximum size to better the chances of survival of a errant shot?
I can respect that. It brings all sorts of "what ifs" to mind but I can still respect the thought.

I'm not even sure of what type of head started this issue or exactly how much of a cutting diameter we're talking about here but I'll throw my 2 cents in on some of the replies I've read.
It seems to me that an important issue has been overlooked as far as the "big head -vs- small head , 30-30 -vs- 7mm mag etc..." and thats shock trauma. A 30-30 will kill a deer just as dead as a 300 mag but the larger and more energy producing projectile will cause much more shock trauma which kills faster providing both examples hit the intended target. Use the same scenario in bowhunting and it's my understanding that a low profile broadhead attached to a light weight arrow producing 55lbs of kinetic energy will produce much less shock trauma compared to a large profile broadhead attached to a heavy arrow producing 70lbs of kinetic energy. Yes...both have to hit the boiler room!;) In my experience , I've shot deer with the light weight setup that weren't sure what happened after being drilled through both lungs and ended up walking or trotting off which exumed less oxygen in their lungs thus extending their distance from impact to death. On the flip side I've been using the heavier (larger profile head and heavier arrows) setup which has never left a deer trotting off or looking around to see what happened.
Thats the advantage I see in the larger profile heads and heavier setups shot out of a bow that produces enough energy to greatly increase the shock trauma effect.

Is it necessary? Nope!

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Bob McNally is a big fan of the 'big heads'. I have an article he wrote praising the use...... he mentioned everything from deer to hogs killed very quickly as he wrote...

Anyway - I see no problem - in fact - if you read that article it made ya think - BUT, here is my personal take. As said above less is more in my opinion, and you may ask why ? It takes less to push a 1.125" head and achieve a pass through than it does a BIG head. A pass through with BOTH heads will show the larger creating more blood etc.... but it takes a better placed shot, perhaps a lil luck and a LOT more bow to push the Vortex 2.25" blades (as Bob liked) in a pass through... so personally Id rather shoot a 1 or 1.125" head with less bow, and shoot better in the cold and still get that pass through.... Bob said a lot of good points in the article - it was worth reading.....and opened my eyes some but Id still be a lil worried about those huge blades getting through..... thats a LOT of blade to push.......

I used a Montec G5 last year - a small head but a REALLY nice one. I also used a Steelforce - a real nice head also. BOTH heads passed through and kept going - one into a tree a good bit.... so Ill stick with my well built 1" fixed blades......

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

LOL- :D I didn`t have much time.:D But i think i made my point!

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

To clarify further; when I say large heads in the context of my post, I am specifically referring to the large "winged" versions found mostly on the mechanical heads.

If in the hands of a shooter who is a reasonably skilled shooter and who will still put the emphasis on accuracy and best shot placement, I do not hold the same aversion as I do knowing that such type of broadhead is being used by those who do not care to put the time in to become very skilled shooters, and believe the size of the head and the large hole they make is all that is needed to kill a deer.

I am unswaying convinced that some shooters are of the mentality that all the he or she has to do is just hit the deer somewhere with a large winged blade, and because of the massive wound, the deer will surely die quickly or in close proximity. They are out there. Just read between the lines of some of the people who use the heads or intend to use the heads.

Such false belief is stoked when someone using a large winged head shoots a deer intentionally or unintentionally in an area of the animal that is universally not a shot anyone should take, and the deer just happens to be killed.

How many threads and posts have we read where some shooters have stated that they went to to such a large winged head for the primary purpose of a better blood trail, as though the head will now eliminate the need to develop and refine post-hit tracking skills? A better blood trail is not guaranteed, and following a blood trail is not the only way to track a wounded deer.

Too much of today's technology is diminishing the overall skills that all bowhunters should develop. Sort of like: how many kids can add or subtract theses days without a calculator, or know how much change you have coming if the computerized register glitches.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

I've seen old bowhunting movies with the likes of the great Fred Bear and Howard Hill that showed some of the most unethical shots at big game animals I've ever seen. More than 100 yards with just a poke and hope attitude???? Come on, you can't be serious when you blast modern equipment as being unethical or too destructive!!! We have the most accurate means of delivering a few small slivers of razorblade to a vital organ today. We also have a much more informed group of bowhunters than 50 years ago. If you don't like the change, just stay right where you're at if you're happy. You shoot your deer and I'll shoot mine;)

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

How the heck do you think our modern ideas of bowhunting ethics were developed, anyway?? They were out there doing the hunting and the shooting, learning what worked and what didn't, laying the ground rules and getting bow seasons established.

Don't go making the foolish mistake of blasting the sport's pioneers and applying today's ethical standards to what they did, way back when.:eek:

If you really want to corrode your sensibilities, read Maurice Thompson's book, "The Witchery of Archery." See what the attitudes of bowhunters were like in the last quarter of the 19th Century.;)

It is interesting to know that Howard Hill killed an elk with an arrow at over 200 yards with a longbow. Makes one wonder just how much energy that arrow had left when it got there. Assuming he was using a bow in his usual draw weight range of 80-100 pounds and the size broadheads he recommends for different bow weights in his book, the 2-blade head on that arrow was 1 1/4" wide and 3 3/4" long.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Walks:

Sure I can! However, you have to pay particular attention to what I say/said. I never said; all modern equipment, and I sometimes clarify further by stating; in the hands of skilled vs. unskilled

When you say, "We have the most accurate means of delivering a few small slivers of razorblade to a vital organ today," you have to explain what you mean by "accurate," and you have to explain when "today" started.

I know what an accurate shooter is, and I know what acuracy can be obtained using good form and with a correct and well-tuned setup, I don't know what an accurate bow or arrow or rest or string, or etc, is.

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Well that says it all "I Don't know what an accurate bow or rest or string or ect, is";)
You made the post "Is it necessary and what is/are the advantages". I gave my thoughts and I will agree that most modern equipment IS NOT NECESSARY for a quick and humane kill.
Equipment is still being improved, like it or not, and people are buying it and using most with excelent results. Modern equipment still requires skill to use effectively.;)

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee, lean back in your most comfortable chair, clear your mind of all other thoughts and carefully ponder the in-depth message of my statement. ;)

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

Sorry but I need to go to work now, but I will do something,,, I'll put you on my ignore list;)

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

:D

RE: Is it necessary and what is/are the advantage(s)?
 

The only things necessary are those items that each bowhunter or archer personally feels makes them the best shot they can be. Everyone is different.