Do Wider Broadhead Designs Kill Faster?

I would rather have two holes, seems like deer with two holes in them die faster than deer with 1 hole and a chest cavity full of blood.

 

I did finish after post. My concern is a new guy hearing too much conflicting information which is derived from his personal extreme limited experience. He has points worth considering in certain circumstances but he's still wrong overall.
Mind you I'm not a oversize everything guy, but 35 years experience n at one point I shot 12-13 bucks alone a year plus working in two bear camps, I've not seen it all but I've seen a lot.

 

it won't matter if you have a second hole. Blood in the body cavity is the same as on ground. It's not where the animal needs it. Shot a buck one time w a recurve n 2 bladed head. Arrow stuck in off shoulder n came lose as it ran a very short bit. The broadhead did massive damage as it flopped round in deer. It went 20 yards

 

Having a solid blood trail it key to recovery, as every hunter learns the hard way at some point. Two holes will bleed out a deer faster than one hole. Two wholes will not happen without a pass through. After the shot, I am more concerned with recovery than how big of a hole is in the animal.

 

Hip boots are now required for participating in this tread.

 

good read

 

Really liked the article. Had me thinking about hunting with my brother when we were younger. I used a 100gr. 2" Rage and he used a 75gr. 1" Wasp Bullet on his 50lb. compound compared to my 70lb. We both had positive results, no head was better or superior to the other. We kept our heads sharp and matched the perfect weight of arrow to what we were shooting.

 

if you're referring to me, Id love to see you say man to man I was liar. Women can speak w no repercussions n so can you here.
If that makes you feel better have at it. As a younger man I came from a state that allowed 4 bucks taken on a reg bow license, permit season was long n allowed as many tags as you could afford. I got many as I had a job that allowed hunting every day. I'm actually not proud I shot so many deer n to do it over Id not since I've seen the decline in herds. I mentioned it simply to state experience in seeing how things work and my point was and is the novice hunter being confused as to what design is better. They have enough to think about n don't need more than basics not some writer writing about 2 deer n the history of broadheads

 

Good points made. I too have shot a doe with a German Kinetic that was eating peacefully and at the shot pulled her head up quickly and after looking around for thirty seconds went back to eating. I nocked another arrow and just as I was drawing for another shot, to follow up my 'don't know how I could have missed that shot' shot, watched her lay down and be done. The GK slipped in between her ribs and went out the same way. Never knew what hit her or that she had been hit.
I'm definitely a fan of the sharpest broadhead possible. If it's put in the right place, a sharp broadhead will do it's job.


Now here's another thought for discussion..........

Two holes give better blood trails but does a broadhead that stays inside, do more damage, leading to a better/quicker demise of the targeted animal?

 

You killed hundreds( note hundreds plural. Meaning more then one, as two or more or even several!!) in a decade? With a bow no less? That is what 20 deer a year at the very least? Great average. And even more amazing that every deer you killed in last 15 years haven't had to track at all, All dead with sight. Really Amazing.

Do you realize how silly you sound to anyone that has any substantial experience bow hunting??

Now its 12 or 13 bucks alone in single year? At least your consistently overstating. By the way I am being generous calling it an overstatement.

No ifs. I am refereeing to you. Your posts are ridiculous considering that you are using them to rebut a very well written and thoughtful article. The author makes his point concisely and with several examples to draw on his position. He also gives credence to opposing ideas rather then dismiss them ad hock like you do in your posts.
Secondly if you think for a minute that I would have any problem telling you in person that your full of it you can add that to the list of things your wrong about.

 

Very good article.

One example,last year I shot a doe on a hard quartering away angle,I hit high but she only went about 60 yards,the blood trail was very sparse which made me think my broad head hadn't done the job however as soon as I opened the chest cavity blood POURED out all over me.

Later in the year I shot another deer with the same broadhead but this time I hit in the lower third of the chest cavity and got a complete pass through,their was blood all over the ground but this time when I opened the chest cavity there wasn't much blood in it.

The point is I would much rather have two holes than one simply because two holes will leave more blood on the ground than one making for a much easier recovery.

 

A lot of this just depends on where you hit them. Last season my cousin killed a nice 2.5yo 9 point that ducked into a very low shot where the 100gr 2 blade Rage hit the elbow, deployed, then deflected up and went straight into the heart. The arrow only got about 2-3 inches of penetration. The buck hopped up, the arrow popped out the hole it went in, then the buck made it 45 yards and belly flopped stone dead. There was hardly any blood until the last 10 yards, but the buck was in a big puddle of it; pretty much everything drained out on the ground from the 2" hole in its side. When we dressed him out the heart had a perfect 2" gash right in the chamber.

Do I think that's optimal? No, I'd rather get a double lung pass through any day.

 

It's a general consensus that two holes are much better than one but what is the context of that statement?

Are you guys saying that two one inch holes from a fixed head is better than one two inch hole from a mechanical that only penetrates half way? The actual wound size would be similar between the two cases.



That

 

Yes,I think I would rather have the one inch holes.

 

Good article. I too have had deer show little to no reaction to a shot. One was with a 4 blade muzzy and the other with an NAP shockwave. One is a fixed head, and one is a mechanical, but neither head has what's considered a "large" cutting diameter.

 

I would much rather have an exit wound than not. Much easier to track is thick environments.

 

Bowguy.. If I could make a suggestion... I hear AT is a really cool forum.

 

Last 2 deer I shot were with a 2 blade helix 1-1/8" fixed blade. One deer ran 15 feet, stopped walked 25 more feet, did the wobble dance and fell over. The second deer never ran at all, she just started walking away and laid down 35 yards away. I was using Grim Reapers before. All the deer shot with the Reapers died, but they ALL ran 75+ yards. I am sold on small fixed blade coc heads now.

 

I've been bowhunting for nearly 40 years using broadheads ranging from 7/8 of an inch to 1 1/4 inches. They worked and work fine today. I hope we all know fast doesn't kill anything.