I loved Dubbya's post and would agree the performance of a mechanical against soft tissue (back hit) in the case of the hunter completing a bad shot...however, I personally feel it is the hunter's actions after the shot that plays in the recovery way more there anyways. If I shoot my small diameter Slick Trick through the guts I'm backing out knowing that is a dead deer if I give it time. If I miss forward and blow through the shoulder with my heavy arrow and stronger ferrule I know my chances of it being lethal are much greater than "most" mechanicals. All personal preference, but I agree choosing a mechanical purely because you're lazy and can't get fixed to fly well is stupidity. Also doing it because it is what "everyone" is doing is stupidity as well. Either way though, it is all moot if the hunter does their part.
Matt don't be swayed from trying the spitfire XXX, it will penetrate far better than the KZ guaranteed, in most cases and does a ton of damage. I will be shooting this head pretty much exclusively in the future. I will also have zero questions shooting an elk with this head, I don't say the same about most rear deploying head.
The idea of a wider cutting diameter saving you on less than ideal shots, as Dubbya states, is somewhat misleading in my mind. Lets take for example a 4 blade 1" cut fixed blade head vs a 2 blade 1.5" cut mechanical. The 4 blade head already has more cutting surface by virtue of having two extra blades. Now, the mech is wider, by 1/2" total, but thats only 1/4" wider on each side of the ferrel of the head. I seriously doubt that small of a width difference is going to determine the outcome of a less than ideal shot. Whats more, the popular two blade mechs have both blades on a single plane vs a four blade head that has blades on two planes. I think if you're going to say the small increase in width is a big advantage, you're also going to have to bank on the blades being "turned" in the direction needed to hit something vital on entry as well. Once an arrow hits something, it stops spinning. So, if for example at impact the blades are vertical on the deer and it doesn't do any damage to vitals on a hit too far back. Having an extra set of blades perpendicular to the other as in a four blade head might be more of an advantage. Of course we're splitting hairs here. I'm just using this as an example disputing the statements of mechanicals being an advantage by virtue of cutting size, etc.
I understand your thoughts and yes, we're splitting hairs, but there is more to it than total cutting surface. Total cutting surface isn't what makes large holes, large holes allow for better blood trails, and on down the road. Honestly, I don't know of very many 1.5" 2-blades but even so, that's a 50% increase over the 1" fixed, even though you doubt that's going to make a difference, it's hard to argue that an extra 50% of "reach" isn't going to help in some fashion. If that were the case why wouldn't we shoot a 1/2" O.D. fixed head? Go to a 2" and obviously it's double that of the fixed, which means you miss an inch on either side of a spot and still cut it, not the case with the 1" fixed. A wider diameter in one direction creates a far larger hole than a 4-blade. The whole issue about which direction the blades are at impact doesn't mean much to me, essentially the 4-blade is cutting the same tissue twice in a much smaller area, than cutting a lot of different tissue in either direction. This drawing is to scale: it's a 2" 2-blade and a 1" 4-blade... Sorry, I was bored while my little guy was coloring and this was my art project. The boxes are 1.1" wide, they can be a vein, artery, whatever you would like... use your imagination. All the highlighted stuff is what you gain over the fixed. Just my $.02.
Great points, comments and experiences, I had no idea this thread would last as long as it has when I posted it!! Thanks for the comments and agreements. I think two other factors require consideration, issues that I have not seen tested or mentioned elsewhere. 1. Wound Channel: It stands to reason that a larger blade will make a larger cut when penetrating to the same depth UNLESS it hits something and a wider blade is more likely to hit something. However, multiple blades can equal a single large blade in overall cutting surface. More importantly, multiple blades cut on multiple axis which creates more highly eviscerated wound channels and ones more likely to bleed. I have seen several BH tests done where a 2", 2 blade head has fully deployed but because of the single axis of cut, the bleeding is greatly reduced over smaller multi blade heads. In effect, the cut itself closes more easily because there is only one cut axis. In first aid courses, one learns to ensure a cut is "closed" in part by stretching the body part where the cut is, to reduce bleeding. For example if someone gets a gash across their gut, sit the person up versus a cut from sternum down where you lie the victim out... makes sense... close the cut to reduce bleeding. So a 4 blade head or a 3 blade head cuts on two axis versus one, which theoretically increases bleeding because it reduces chances for self closure. Still even better would be BH's that rotate on contact like single bevel heads with bleeder blades. (DRT heads have 1.84 inch cutting surface with single bevels for rotation on contact to increase bleeding and reduce likelihood of self closure. Yes, I have seen huge blood trails from two blade heads but I have seen the same from 3 and 4 blade heads. I think it depends on the orientation of the cut on an animal (like the orientation of gut cut explained above) and that would be completely unpredictable. 2. Drag/friction/force: Harder to explain. Imagine standing up with arms extended while someone pushes downward on your outstretched arm/hand. This is FAR harder to resist than if your arms are held in to your body and someone does the same thing. Similarly, stand straight up with arms straight out at your side and try to hold pails full of water, or even try to lift the pails... tough to do. Alternatively, bring your hands in to your shoulders and hold the same pails, or lift them up and it is more easy to do. With wide 2" blades I suspect similar physics are at play whereby because of the long blades which are further from the center of gravity, there is a greater tendency to resist forward motion thus penetration is reduced. More drag/friction/surface area = less penetration UNLESS force is increased. It is the reduction of drag that turns most to mech. heads anyway... reduced drag in the air. To increase force, increase draw weight, increase draw length, increase arrow weight, reduce arrow diameter increase FOC, or a combination of all of these. Finally, with longer blades deflection from the original course of motion is more likely.. think about the arms outstretched example. It is easy to push down on a persons arms when they are outstretched versus tight to their body. So an arrow traveling straight with wide blades may have more tendency to turn once it hits something different than a smaller more compact head, thus the actual track would change, curve and be reduced. Just a few thoughts... Based on all of this, I have convinced myself (or reaffirmed) my thoughts on my broadhead selection.. small multi blade fixed single bevel blades. They do not require tuning, fly well, have zero chance of not opening, require no change in force to open, are sharp as hell, create huge holes that bleed well, stay open/don't self close, and pass through at a rate of about 95% versus what we are seeing on BHOD shows (much less). Tom
I use 1.75" Spitfires, they create a massive wound channel and I have yet to have a complete pass through. I know these are coyotes but I posted the picture to show the entry wound. I am shooting 64lbs and a 416 grain arrow at speeds of around 308fps. I actually shot a deer that entered right behind the front shoulder and traveled through the deer breaking the hind quarter and exiting. I was able to reuse the arrow and the head which tells you that they are durable as well.
I've played with the Killzones at work some and I wish there was a way to test it but they take a significant more amount of force to open the blades in comparison to similar heads. I have no issue imagining that any of the Spitfire heads from NAP will out penetrate the Killzones. I think the Killzone is eating up a lot of energy upon entry. I truly believe the Spitfires would be a better option in the NAP line. As far as rear deploying heads go, I think any of the Rage will put penetrate the Killzones. I will also mention that the G5 Havocs are also very hard and inefficient to open Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Meant to say that I have yet to NOT have a complete pass through. Mine always blow through even at 53 yards.
Just a few things. I haven't read anything about the size of the Deer being a factor, aside from dubbya's details. Next, I did read that broadheads are being used because of the sponsorship. In 2002, of the $535 million dollars spent on Archery, $35 million was for broadheads alone. That is a big number, so I would say the sponsorships are working well. Finally, the BHOD Prostaff, has some of the best blood trails I have seen in 32 years of hunting Archery. Keep up the great work!
