i shot a my first buck with a rage hit it a little far back but it still only ran 70 yards and died. Also the commercials are not lieing when they say its like throwing an ax through an animal
Bought the Rage 3 blades this year. I've yet to shoot a deer with one but I've seen enough to quit using them. Touch anything with them and at least one blade will open. I'm constantly having to reach out and push the blades back behind the o-ring. Rather have something that I don't have to worry about when I'm reaching for my bow. Switching to the Bloodrunner 3 blade.
Any broadhead manufactured within the last 50 years could make the same claim. I shoot a robust fixed blade head (slick trick) and know I can count on it regardless of where I hit the animal. Doesn't mean I'll recover the animal, but the broadhead will never ever be at fault. This doesn't mean to say you are wrong, as you can (and likely will) use whatever you want. However attention must be paid to the different styles of hunting. Even when you put a rage where it belongs, you most often are not getting a complete pass through. Those that I've talked to that shoot rage's only get a pass through about 5% of the time. This is not conducive to how I like to hunt. I want a pass through, every time, and when my slick trick goes where it is suppose to, it goes through and is buried in the ground 6" in the dirt on the other side. This leads to a nice hole in both sides, and a blood trail that respectively is on both sides increasing my likelihood of blood getting on something I can see easily. The fact is that bowhunters have been killing successfully for a lot longer than mechanical broadheads have existed. Why anyone would want to introduce MORE variables into an equation where there is too many to start with is beyond my capacity to understand. I can't help but have questions in regard to mechanical heads of any manufacture: 1) Why does every mechanical head aside from designs like the bloodrunner, that cut no matter what, have complaints from users about the blades not opening? 2) Why do many states prohibit the use of mechanical broadheads on anything bigger than deer? (elk, moose, etc) 3) Why pay so much for broadheads? 4) Why sacrifice penetration, for the promise of "axe-like" wounds? I know that I can hammer a slick trick right through the shoulder blade of a mature buck at 38yds and still get into the chest cavity for a vital hit. I know I can shoot through BOTH shoulder blades and have a complete pass through on a 1.5yr old doe at 43yds. Do I want to hit them there? No, but it's nice to know that when I do, my likelihood of recovering that animal is much higher than if I were using some huge diameter expandable. Now I know everyone likes to use what they use... but I just figured I'd offer some thoughts from the fixed side of the fence.
I've shot ten deer with the 2 blade version and i have had a pass thru every time and have not lost a single deer. Most of these were quartering shots and the blades opened and performed perfect every time. The only downfall that i can see is that the blades tend to make a bit of a rattling noise which bugs the heck out of me, and that the O-rings can dry rot. But i dont mind having to do a little maintenance when i get the blood trails and easy recoveries that come with it. Just remember its all about shot placement, throw any top of the line head on there and put it in the right place and that deer with die.
The 2 blades probably pass through more frequently... I'll yield that point as everyone I know that shoots them uses the 3 blade version. Same could be said for a piece of obsidian chipped to a serrated edge like the native americans used to kill buffalo. My slick tricks don't rattle, and they don't have an O-ring to rot. I see my questions remain unanswered. I'll ask you directly. 1) What happens when it doesn't go where its suppose to? 2) Why willingly and knowingly introduce more variables? I'm not being facetious. I really want to know what the motivation is to use these heads, when fixed designs have killed animals for the better part of a couple thousand years.
I don't see any need to be nervous about shooting the Rage Broadhead. I have used many broadheads, but have used Rage exclusively for 2 1/2 years. Now have eleven deer, and none of them made it over 75 yards. See no reason is switching now. I have made quartering away shots, and broadside shots with no failures. I have shot Muzzy (liked them), NAP Thunderhead (liked them), Spitfires (liked them), Tekan (liked them), Grim Reapers (liked them), but none gave the consistant blood trail that the Rage seems to. That being said, most any mechanical that opens to 2 inches will leave a lot of blood. My suggestion is try it for yourself. You will not get a sure fire answer on here, as there are two sides of the fence. If you are nervous, do not shoot them. That will just play tricks on your mind. A lot of misses, or lost deer get blamed on "equipment failure." Don't buy into that. Shoot what you are comfortable with. The Rage performs, but I am sure others do to, or else we would only have one choice to buy at the Pro Shop!
I don't understand. There are lots of people shooting rage heads here... can no one intelligently field my questions? I'm not looking for a fight, nor am I just baiting. I want someone to give me answers to the questions based on facts... instead of reading post after post of "I shoot them and they work" type responses.
Facts on why we shoot Rage (or mechanicals in general)? They shoot accurately, and most importantly they offer bigger wound channels and more blood. Muzzy has a 1 1/8 inch cut or somewhere around there, and many expandables (Rage for sure) offer a two inch cut. Facts are facts, one inch is smaller than two inches. Fixed heads have more surface area than expandables to be affected by wind. Basic physics proves that. Yes, mechanical's have a potential for failure, but I have never experienced it. So based on all the positives, and zero negative experiences I shoot the Rage. My track jobs are shorter by an average of 45 yards, and my blood trails are larger for the most part. Hope this is more what you are looking for. All of the broadheads work these days. This is just my .02
Yes, that is more of what I'm looking for, and I thank you for the level headed and fact based response based on your personal accounts. I hope to get a few more!
I agree. I would have made pretty much the same points. One negative that I can think of but have yet to experiencing is an errant shot that hits the shoulder. I can understand how a smaller diameter, more swept-back fixed blade design would pass through bone easier than a larger diameter design. I suppose I'll come to that issue when it happens to me but for now, I'll stick with rage.
I'd like to talk more about the wound channel/blood trail. I watch tons of bowhunting TV, and a lot of those guys use Rage heads. I virtually NEVER see those guys get a pass through. It is extremely rare. I'd have to say less than 5% of the time. This isn't really even debatable. So accepting that as fact, this leads to a big hole in one side of the deer, often up high on the side facing the shooter. I've seen this replicate so many times this year alone when watching all manner of different bowhunting shows. Obviously if it did completely pass through, the holes would be big enough for the insides to just spill out! That would be impressive. Yet, pass through's are rare. So, people say they shoot 2 blade rage's to overcome this, and get pass throughs much more. This is something I can get behind, as I want pass through shots all the time. So with a 2 blade, 2" cut and a pass through, that has to be pretty lethal. Now, lets take a look at the head I shoot; Slick Trick standard 100gr. It's a four blade with 1" cutting diameter. Immediately everyone cringes because it doesn't have the cutting diameter of an axe... right? Wait a second, and remember it's a four blade design. So that's two separate 1" cuts. One plus one is 2. So the cutting diameter is equal. 2" of cutting going on no matter if you shoot a 1" four blade, or a 2" 2 blade. With the slick trick, being that the wings aren't so wide, penetration is much greater. The short strong design also means it will handle more punishment. Does anyone disagree with any one point thus far?
That's not what cutting diameter is. The cutting diameter is not equal. The diagram on the left is a 2-blade, 2-inch cutting diameter Rage broadhead. The diagram on the right is a 4-blade, 1-inch cutting diameter broadhead. A larger cutting diameter gives you more surface area that can be cut. The smaller diameter cuts less across the surface area but produces two extra cuts. The amount of trauma and cutting produced by each is probably comparable but in my opinion, a wider cut (especially a wider cut in the hide of the animal) is better. I think a larger cut would let more blood than a few smaller cuts - again, just my opinion until I shoot an animal with one of each I guess. Also, a wider cut may allow you to hit more organs as the arrow travels through the body. Of course, the downside to a wider cut (like I mentioned in my previous post) is that its probably less likely to pass through tough bone.
Penetration is why I use the 2 blade design. Sometimes it appears more like a gash than a round hole, but huge gashes on both sides equals a passthrough and a lot of blood. Had great results with the two blade vortex several years back, but no one sells them around here anymore. Slick Tricks are good heads. I always say shoot what works for you. If you are not losing deer, don't switch. Especially to Rage, because you will never go back! LOL! Had to say it, sorry. Two blade is superior to three blade in my opinion, but you know what they say about opinons!
As I'm a fan of more penetration rather than less, I'd agree with your opinion. Again thomas I thank you for having the ability to discuss a hot topic without getting personally attached! It's very refreshing. I too believe everyone should use what they want to use. However, I'm a firm believer in products standing on the facts instead of marketing... and I've often wondered if these heads were anything but marketing. As often happens with expensive gear, it's hard to get anyone that has purchased them to given an honest account simply because they want to reinforce their decisions whether they be good or bad. Slider, I disagree entirely with your explanation of cutting diameter. 2" cut in a straight line, or 2" cut in an X shape still results in the same amount of tissue being cut. The only thing that changes is the pattern that it is being cut in. Your explanation doesn't match your diagram. In the case of the rage two blade, you have one inch on each side of the head equaling two inches total cutting diameter. In the case of the slick trick, you have half inch on each side of the head, but it is on four sides instead of two. You don't really need to be that good at math to see this. You cannot just ignore the four blade design vs the two blade design because it suits your argument. 1/2" x 4 = 2" 1" x 2 = 2" The reason this is important is that we are not just talking about diameter as a cross section, but rather how much tissue is cut. In the case of the rage 2 blade vs the slick trick standard, equal tissue is cut. What makes them different then is the manner in which they cut. The 2 blade rage's pop out like wings. Very wide, and without much slope on them. The tip of the rage is a simply a pointed blade. These are not qualities conducive to strength or penetration. The slick trick design on the other hand has a steep slope on them, and do not stick out more than 1/2" from the body. The tip is a pyramid that is extremely hard and sharp. These are qualities very conducive to penetration. So if the amount of flesh cut by both broadheads is equal, and one penetrates further, flies the same, and is without any moving parts... why would I shoot the other one?
The cutting diameter is not the same. A 2" diameter is not the same as a 1" diameter. The cutting diameters are not the same. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Lets move on. Which is exactly what this means: Next. If you had read and understood the post I think you might have concluded that I was making two separate points. You don't need to be an English major to understand my previous post. Two points were made. 1) The cutting diameters are not equal - HOWEVER 2) The amount of trauma caused (or tissue cut) is probably comparable. Again, I already pointed this out: Simple. In your case you wouldn't. Bottom line is they work for many hunters and They give other hunters problems (or other hunters are quick to blame the equipment for their error). For me personally, I'm still on the fence about these broadheads. I got much better grouping than with fixed blades this year but I too am somewhat wary of performance in all shooting situations. I've only had the opportunity to shoot one small deer this year and I was very pleased with the results I got. I'll see how the rest of the season pans out. I do really like the bloodrunner design though - seems like you get the best of both worlds. I think i'll try those out with my next set of arrows.
The bloodrunners suffer from poor penetration as well, but for a different reason: Large body. I missed where you said comparable damage on flesh. Sorry about that. I'll also have to yield that you are right about the diameter. One side of the wound to the other is twice as big with the rage. I guess the real problem is the industries emphasis on cutting diameter... when it really doesn't matter. What matters is the length of tissue that is cut in total. The real question becomes, is one larger hole on the entry side superior to a hole in both sides? I don't know. Personally, I like the fact that I get blood on both sides of where the deer runs. It increases my chance that the blood will get on something I can see. The real issue I have with the big expandables is the lack of ruggedness and penetration when things don't work out. Has anyone ever hit a deer in the shoulder blade or the shoulder bone with a rage? How did it turn out? Please include details of yardage, angle, and your bow's KE if possible. The reason I'm interested is simply to know. The day may come when I have to use an expandable. I might not always be able to tune a fixed blade in a new bow some day.
I've shot 5 bucks w Rage 2 blades. Had pass throughs with ease on 3. One broke through front shoulder and stuck out the other side of the deer about 10" eventually falling out. The other got about 13-15" penetration on a deer literally facing me (spun on shot). Got one lung and liver. Deer ran 125 yards and the lung was so mutilated there was basically nothing left of it. For someone to say a 4 blade 1" diameter BH does as much damage as a 2" 2 blade is just confused. The wound infliction is nowhere even close, and I have used both. 90% of people who dislike rage or mechanicals in general have either never shot one, didn't have the adequate energy for one in the first place, or flat out made a bad shot. People put WAY too much emphasis on what BH they use. Put a freakin field point where it counts and the deer will pile up in no time. It all boils down to shot placement
Tembry, Do you really feel you offered something to the discussion that isn't seen in EVERY other rage thread on the internet? Thomas and slider both argued on the merits of the design and the facts at hand. All you did was throw insults and regurgitate what is said in every other instance by a pro-rage character in nearly every other thread. It's quite distasteful. As a new member, I was drawn to this site due to a LACK of that kind of behavior. I registered on archery talk as well, but as it's filled with the same kind of filth, I saw no reason to post there more than 2 days. I'll try to look past it for a second and concentrate on the substance of your post. You say you've shot 5 bucks with rage 2 blades, and only had pass through on 3. That is precisely the information I'm looking for. I've shot a deer end to end with slick trick and passed through. You're right, I've never used a mechanical. Why do you think I'm wanting to have this conversation about the FACTS with people that can remain objective and have an adult-style discussion without the negative condescending crap? Seeing the damage the slick tricks have done on roughly 30+ antelope, mule deer, and whitetail... it's difficult for me to comprehend a more lethal broadhead than what I currently shoot. I'm not putting way too much emphasis on anything. You think the world will end if I don't try a rage? No it won't, but I enjoy talking bowhunting and bowhunting gear. I'm not going to bowhunt whitetails with a field point, and my shot placement usually speaks for itself. I've also had a frontal hit like the one you describe. I too was met with a completely destroyed chest cavity that looked like a grenade went off inside. This tends to happen when a razor sharp object is suspended in the vital area as a deer runs away causing the internal organs to jostle about and the arrow to sway back and forth cutting yet even more. This was roughly 13 years ago and the broadhead was a 145gr bear super razorhead. As you so eloquently mentioned, and apparently think you are the first to do so, it doesn't much matter what hits the vital area. If I've inconvenienced you by somehow forcing you to contribute to this thread, please feel free to ignore my postings in the future. However, I hardly feel the discussion to be over with the finality that you seem to, and I would like to get first hand accounts from people that use them and can talk about it with people that do not without treating them as an imbecile. Whether you know it or not, you are not the only one that has chosen rage broadheads, but like most that have... you talk as though you are an authority on a product that possibly has been more divisive in the industry than any other broadhead in existence. I'm not trying to divide, and I'm not interested in being patronized. Least of which by someone that has no clue how long I've been bowhunting and how many animals I've taken. Rather, I'm always trying to learn more, as that is the singular thing that seems to give me success year after year. So we can agree on one point; It's not so much the equipment, as the methods. Now if you can possibly detach the condescending tone from your posts, I would be interested in hearing about your first hand experience about the one you hit in the shoulder. Where in the shoulder did it hit exactly? What affect did that have on the head?
