Sharks vs. Woodsman
 

I have always used simmon's 160 gr. land sharks. I shoot a Treadway long bow 52# @ 28". I was considering trying out the woodsman 150's.They are long & narrow 3 blades & the sharks are wide 2 blade. How about the blood & internal damage?

RE: Sharks vs. Woodsman
 

I've only killed a few critters with a 125 grain WW--one deer, one small pig, one fox, one raccoon, maybe a rabbit or three--no complaints here. Didn't need a blood trail on the smaller critters--they died in sight (the pig was the exception--ran straight to a buddy who finished it off, but it had bedded down within 30 yds or so of the first hit so I don't think it would have lasted long). Not much ofa trail with the deer, but that was my fault--the hit was high and it bled internally. There was gobs of blood though--the deer sloshed when I was dragging it out, and sprayed blood everywhere. Big nasty wound.

Never tried the Simmons--had some friends that couldn't get good flight with them.

This year I'll be choosing between WW's, Ace Standards, and Ribteks.

Chad

RE: Sharks vs. Woodsman
 

The Simmons are great heads, while the hype right now are heads that have single bevels, you can save a lot of money, and do alot worst than a Wensel. I have had blood trails thatlooked aswide as a foot path, they fly like guided missiles, and best of all they are easy to sharpen.

Years ago I use to shoot the original Rothaar Snuffer,Wensel heads are an improvement onthat design, a design that I thought didnot require, and could not be improved on. While any well made broadhead, that is razor sharp, placed in the right spot will do the the job. I can't help but sing the praises of the Wensel Woodsman,I have shot through thespine of hogs, the head was still sharp, even after digging into the ground underneath, and I still use those same heads.

Just my opinion, would love to hear others....