good article. You bring up an interesting piece of the broadhead debate I have not heard before. thanks for giving me something to think about.
great article. I agree completely on it. I don't shoot any of the crazy wide broadheads, but do shoot a Spitfire. I do believe a larger cut may help out a bit on a marginal shot?, but maybe i'm wrong on that.
That guy is nuts w all the technical nomsense I didnt even finish reading but an identical hole in an identical spot on an identical animal and the bigger hole wins. Simple as that., deer need to lose a certain percentage of blood to expire. A smaller hole causes slower leaking thus an animal maintaining life that much longer. Stick a sewing needle into to truck n see the slow leak. Now drive over a rebar. Tire automatically goes flat
That guy is nuts w all the technical nomsense I didnt even finish reading but an identical hole in an identical spot on an identical animal and the bigger hole wins. Simple as that., deer need to lose a certain percentage of blood to expire. A smaller hole causes slower leaking thus an animal maintaining life that much longer. Stick a sewing needle into to truck n see the slow leak. Now drive over a rebar. Tire automatically goes flat. I do agree with the reaction change if panicked but a bow makes noise, the hunter moves at the shot, the deer normally but not always see that. I've killed hundreds of deer, in the 80s the bows were soft n quiet, the deer sometimes stayed. Now the bows are louder and with the non aggressive blade advice he's giving I should be looking pretty far for deer. Bet it's been 15 years or more since I even tracked one. They fall dead within sight w a mechanical. guys who get paid to write articles have money as a motive. They try n come up w new theories n ideas to interest us or sell a story. It's nonsense while very seldom he may have some merit to his story I wonder how many deer with bow he's shot or even where he hit them? 200 yards on a perfect hit? Come on, plain up marginal shot he had. I do understand things happen but his basis is incorrect
That guy is nuts w all the technical nomsense I didnt even finish reading but an identical hole in an identical spot on an identical animal and the bigger hole wins. Simple as that., deer need to lose a certain percentage of blood to expire. A smaller hole causes slower leaking thus an animal maintaining life that much longer. Stick a sewing needle into to truck n see the slow leak. Now drive over a rebar. Tire automatically goes flat. I do agree with the reaction change if panicked but a bow makes noise, the hunter moves at the shot, the deer normally but not always see that. I've killed hundreds of deer, in the 80s the bows were soft n quiet, the deer sometimes stayed. Now the bows are louder and with the non aggressive blade advice he's giving I should be looking pretty far for deer. Bet it's been 15 years or more since I even tracked one. They fall dead within sight w a mechanical. Now since the early 80s I've used recurves n zwickey heads. Fixed blade from compounds n mechanicals theres no comparison in the woods. guys who get paid to write articles have money as a motive. They try n come up w new theories n ideas to interest us or sell a story. It's nonsense while very seldom he may have some merit to his story I wonder how many deer with bow he's shot or even where he hit them? 200 yards on a perfect hit? Come on, plain up marginal shot he had. I do understand things happen but his basis is incorrect
Here in Wisconsin we Sturgeon spear on the lake here with 7 ft lead filled poles with multiple barbed spears on the end. Think i'll use that this year for bow season
Very well written article that seems to be founded in experience. I concur with a lot of what the author wrote. Unlike some posters here with their nonsense of hundreds of deer killed and not tracking one in 15 years.
The needle punctures a hole but rebar will tear a hole. A large part of the debate has to do with sharpness of broadhead. You want your broadhead to cut a hole not tear a hole.
Many of the top expandables are two blades with large cutting diameter. Compare that to a smaller cutting diameter four blade broadhead, they may have the same linear cutting edge essentially creating the same sized hole just shaped differently.
I think you are arguing something that the author wasn't even trying to prove, which is evident upon your statement that you didn't finish reading the article. His point was the small CoC broadheads have less energy transfer to the animal than large expandables - thus increasing the chance that the animal will not notice the impact and take off like a rocket. He wasn't trying to say small CoC fixed blades kill more, he was writing about the effects of each broad head on the animal post-shot and pre-expiration - which means he is assuming both broadheads did their job in expiring the animal.
Great article, lots to think about. Made sone really good points. Things I've noticed myself on deer reacting as if they didn't know what hit em. You really shouldn't judge if you didn't read the whole thing.
yes of course but I was trying to just use size. There is a very big difference all things being the same. Big broadheads win plain n simple
I agree that an exit hole is great for creating a blood trail but when I was younger I shot a buck where the arrow made contact with the hide on the exit side of the animal but never broke skin. I have to believe, that hole would have resulted the same as if it did create an exit hole. Does it matter if where the blood ends up, on the ground or pooled in the chest cavity? That buck only went 40 yards. I was shooting 55 pounds and rage 100gr broadheads.
I've also shot a doe with a fixed blade magnus stinger and 70 pound bow complete pass through. She jumped/lunged forward when the arrow impacted and was dead before she landed.
Calm down and with a clear head go read the article, with an open mind, try to hear what he's saying. Before throwing stones. Towards the end he gets to the point he's trying to make, he ties it all together.
