c903

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.

Orions_Bow

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.

c903

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.

walks with a gimp

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

c903

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? [:@]

jsasker

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

jsasker

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

Fieldmouse

Gut or not to gut?

I guess you would skip that part.

jsasker

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

bearklr

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.