Toxic broadheads! Look awesome!

[NW-GSP]

Saw a flyer on these at riverside archery last weekend

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=wDKLxpw31VY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DwDKLxpw31VY

[RadSav]

Good product to buy for your broadhead collection.

If any of the guys show up in elk camp with those... .  They will be kicked out of my camp for life!

Meat worms 

[Worldhunter]

Ha ha! This is hilarious!

[NW-GSP]

Not sure why you are talking so bad about them?
Looks like they would be something to try

[DoubleJ]

I'd like to see some video of them going through bone instead of milk jugs

[spur_ride]

  Im with you there DoubleJ. a milk jug is one thing but a shoulder or rib bone is a whole new ballgame

[NW-GSP]

 

Im with you there DoubleJ. a milk jug is one thing but a shoulder or rib bone is a whole new ballgame

  I agree but no sense in bashing till tested. It would be interesting to see bone tests

[RadSav]

Im with you there DoubleJ. a milk jug is one thing but a shoulder or rib bone is a whole new ballgame

  I agree but no sense in bashing till tested. It would be interesting to see bone tests

There are known facts in the science of external and terminal ballistics.  Also known facts in the science of medical and clinical wound analysis.  Why would I need to test something that proven science has already established? 

I don't need to run gasoline in my deisel truck to know it's a bad idea.  Science and history has already told me that.

Products like this come out nearly every other year.  It's been that way since the beginning of modern archery.  And each time someone comes up with a new spin and fancy verbage to explain it's benefits and features.  And each time it's failure repeats.  Perhaps that's because the science of known facts never changes even though the marketing and package does.

Sort of like socialism!  History has proven that it is never good for the people.  And yet somewhere in the world someone is always giving it a try.  Doesn't mean I needed to vote for Obama just to see if it will work this time.

[Worldhunter]

Beaten zones, exterior, aierial, and terminal ballistics... Ya dee ya dee yada...clearly the US military has been led astray with all of thier testing... Who knew?? All they needed was a few milk jugs with red food coloring added....


But seriously...

When is milk jug season in WA?

[D-Rock425]

I bet they fly great

[724wd]

try pushing a sharpened cookie cutter through a deer hide, then 3 or 4 blade broadhead.  broadheads like that have been around for at least 30 years, and they've always been gimmicks that don't penetrate worth a dang.

[jechicdr]

Probably not exactly like a cookie cutter since they taper to a point.  Suspect it would be more like an 8 blade broadhead with curved blade channels.

[D-Rock425]

Are they even legal here in Washington?

[MLBowhunting]

They probably whistle down range

[h2ofowlr]

Interesting to see how they do.

[RadSav]

Are they even legal here in Washington?

Don't see how they would be illegal in the state. Not barbed and legal in dimensions.   I am certainly not encouraging their use though.

[BOWHUNTER45]

Junk ....

[bow-n-head]

I would guess they would have a penetration problem on hair hyde and bone. Not for me....Unless I am going strictly for milk jugs

[Austrian Hunter]

Shuttle T-Lock has proven unparalleled  results for me on elk, bear, deer and seen it first hand on Moose!! 

[worldsworsthunter]

They look like they would make a good turkey broadhead.

[lilswab]

Lots of opinions here, but since nobody has even tried the Toxic Broadhead including myself then we are all just speculating.

So since we are all freinds let me tell you what I do know.   

I have actually looked at the head at the ATA show this year in Louisville, Kentucky.

They are legal in for use in Washington State.  Not barbed and over the minimum cutting diameter of 7/8"
I had a long conversation with Chris Rager (inventor/owner) and his son about the effectiveness of the head and from the sounds of it the Toxic head has some good merits. Massive meat worms for devastating wounds.

My first thought was the penetration would be horrible especailly for bad shots.  After talking to Chris and dicussing what the blades do when they hit bone or a rib and there is some sound science behind it. The blades actually move around the bone.  In my unexpert opionnion in would love to try them on a deer to SEE for myself before I write them off as the latest gimmick.

I look at archery like this.  Todays latest gimmick is tomorrows MUST have...like Rage Broadheads, The Fall-Away Arrow Rest, Lighted Nocks, Scent Killer, and more.

I am not saying the Toxic will replace my Trophy Taker Shuttle T-Locks, but what I am saying is don't knock the Toxic Broadhead until you have tried it.   

[724wd]

thing is, because the same concept has been around for over 30 years, it HAS been tried... a lot.  and they've all been dismissed because of the poor performance.  my dad has one from the late 70's.  he said it was the worst broadhead he's ever shot. 

now, perhaps with today's faster bows they'd be ok?  he was shooting them out of recurves and the first generation of compounds.  but i gotta say, why mess with what works?

[RadSav]

Yep, believe everything that Chris Rager has to say!  Why not?  His Rocket broadheads along with the Punch Cutter are the reason none of the western states will allow the use of the Rage.  He also was so smart he tried to sue all expandable broadhead manufacturers until he found out his patent was worthless due to prior art.  So obviously his knowledge of external and terminal ballistics is only second to his research abilities.

Remember this phrase from the movie The Jerk, "Well, as long as we have a voucher!" 

What part of a broadhead actually makes it lethal?  Why?  What actually makes a broadhead fly well?  Why?  How does penetration and over penetration apply to the interaction with the target?  Why?  What are the benefits of prolonged coagulation?  Why?  What happens to the animal in a nonlethal broadhead strike with each blade style?  Why?  Are their benefits to forcing air into a circle at high speed?  Why?  What happens when you stimulate blood platlets?  Why?  What are the two most common stimulants of blood platlets?  Why?  Do the benefits of so called "Meat Worms" outweigh the negatives?  Why?

Sorry, but the Toxic spin doesn't change the science.  And the sales spin doesn't answers those questions in a comprehensive scientific manner.  Testing should be done to support the application of proven science.  Not to hopefully prove that conjecture and supposition might have some element of truth.  So as I see it the only "Speculating" being done is by those believing there is, or might be, a benefit to this type of design. 

Myself? I will stick with my straight, super sharp, edge maintaining, proven science, and historically superior blades that prolong coagulation and lead to the quick recovery of the animal.  And in the event I make a bad nonlethal hit I can find some comfort in the fact the wound will heal with a low risk of infection and minimal impact on the animal.  Meaning I will never ever shoot a Toxic.

[npaull]

They appear to have achieved the remarkable task of violating essentially every principle of a good broadhead at once.

[SGTDuffman]

These will go the way of the Browning Serpentine that preceded them by 40 years. Until someone comes out with something that can out penetrate a 2 blade, I'll be sticking with what I've got.

[grundy53]

It's almost hunting season again so many will be looking at new broadheads. I had a friend ask about these and I told him what Radsav thought about them  . It would probably be a good thing if anyone interested in these read this post before purchasing...

[turkeyfeather]

Well lucky for you all I can offer some real world experience on these. A buddy and I split the cost of a pack to "try out". Let's just say they never made it out of the backyard archery range. We shot them out of both of our bows at a rinehardt block target. We were less than impressed. Out of my bow I lost about a third of the penetration compared to my steel force heads. My buddy lost about a quarter of the penetration compared to his muzzy's. They look cool, but that's about as far as they go.

[xXLojackXx]

Maybe if Radsavs broad heads would ever be done people wouldn't have to shoot toxics   

[MLBowhunting]

I feel for him.  He works his butt off and can't get his stuff on time.      I am sure he will be willing to chime in on how impressed he is with the quality of the Toxic.   I actually sent a pic to Rad of the Toxic heads and he didnt even respond.  Lol enough said. 

[RadSav]

Anger has turned to indifference at this point.  It will happen when it's right or I run out of money.  Shouldn't be too long for either!

[h20hunter]

Ok Rad.......tough one here........you are on an island....it is deserted but for tasty little deer that yet stunted are tasty and delicious. There happens to be a ground blind with a bow....only two types of broadheads and no other avaialable means to dispatch your prey....


The Atom......or the Toxic.....

Which do you choose!

[RadSav]

Which do you choose!

Am I deserted on this island with no chance of rescue?  Is there no food source at the beach that would sustain life?  Is there no flint for which I could knap a superior broadhead to the choices at hand?

Take the material for the blind to construct a snare to trap the stunted and deliciously tasty deer and use the bow as a club to whack them over the head!  Would likely be more humane than the Atom and wound fewer than the Toxic.

[Russ McDonald]

I got a set over a year or so ago.  They also didn't make it out of the back yard.  They flew like crap out of my bow.  Same arrows with muzzy which were dead on put those Toxics on yo the left to the right, high and low put the muzzy's back on and dead nuts on.  They sit in my arrow box.

[Roosevelt]

I bought some to try them out.  Not so sure they will take the place of my Shuttle T's but figured they are worth a try.  I've only shot one at my target a few times so far.  Holds a good group and penetration in the target seemed similar but the dang things absolutely destroyed my target so I wouldn't want to practice too much with them (which is ridiculous).  Target worms and target guts galore.  The guy at the archery shop I bought them from showed me a picture of a buck he shot last year with a complete pass through and a gnarly entrance and exit would so I figured I had to give them a look. 

[Russ McDonald]

If anyone wants to try them out I have 3 100gr ones that I will gladly let them try heck if you like them you can have them.  I will stick with my Muzzy MX 4 blade broadheads. 

[MLBowhunting]

Hey dont give them to Smossy.   Otherwise he wont be getting in my truck to go hunting. 

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

These will go the way of the Browning Serpentine that preceded them by 40 years. Until someone comes out with something that can out penetrate a 2 blade, I'll be sticking with what I've got.

Not the dentist again!

[Rock7]

They remind me of the ones that came out a few years ago made of wire. No thanks

[Wood]

One of my inlaws had them last year in elk camp. Not a pretty picture. He came back to camp late one night to tell the story. Said he "smoked" a spike. Arrow came right back out and he and a friend spent a long day tracking with no elk.

[Terry Dean]

I also Bought 6 of these except I bought Toxic Cyclones, I bought them looking at all the videos, then after I bought them I wanted to know how they flew at long distances 40-60-80 yrds, looked at more hater vids on this product and it seams as they are not so accurate after 40 yrds, too bad but I got drawn for A quality bull this year and Im just not going to risk it

[bowjunkie]

a buddy brought a 3 pak to camp last year WOW what a peice of crap mine broke on the 3rd shot.

[John B]

Im with you there DoubleJ. a milk jug is one thing but a shoulder or rib bone is a whole new ballgame

  I agree but no sense in bashing till tested. It would be interesting to see bone tests

There are known facts in the science of external and terminal ballistics.  Also known facts in the science of medical and clinical wound analysis.  Why would I need to test something that proven science has already established? 

I don't need to run gasoline in my deisel truck to know it's a bad idea.  Science and history has already told me that.

Products like this come out nearly every other year.  It's been that way since the beginning of modern archery.  And each time someone comes up with a new spin and fancy verbage to explain it's benefits and features.  And each time it's failure repeats.  Perhaps that's because the science of known facts never changes even though the marketing and package does.

Sort of like socialism!  History has proven that it is never good for the people.  And yet somewhere in the world someone is always giving it a try.  Doesn't mean I needed to vote for Obama just to see if it will work this time.

Can you elaborate RadSav? What known facts are you talking about, and where can I find them?

[RadSav]

Can you elaborate RadSav? What known facts are you talking about, and where can I find them?

Depends on what area of study you want to concentrate on.  External Ballistics - dealing with aerodynamics, air flow, drag, turbulence, etc?  Medical/Clinical - dealing with blood platelets and the triggers of those platelets in relation to wound healing or lack there of? Maybe to further include both the effects of shock, stimulation and the circulatory system in regards to blood flow to the brain?  Metallurgical - dealing with blade materials and how each material reacts to sharpening and heat treating in different formulations?  And then of course Physics in regards to energy transfer and the sciences of friction and it's relationship to energy?  Also within the study of physics is the rather simple application of static force and dynamic force most often confused when dealing with arrowhead penetration testing.

Back when Duke Savora required me to formulate my own research it was done in majority at the UW. Other sources I used in my research were engineers from Boeing, metallurgist from Bohler-Uddeholm USA and strip grinders from American Safety Razor, Stanley Tool and Crescent-Weick.  I would make a list of questions to ask professors/specialists in each field. Included in these lists of questions would be suggested authors and publications that would allow appropriate foot notes to my research.  At that time, mid eighties, that meant going to the various university libraries and searching microfiche.   These days I expect the vast majority could be accomplished with more modern papers written and posted online.  The foot notes of Wikipedia are a surprisingly good source of publication and author research for someone just starting out. Especially when dealing with known sciences in the field of physics and clinical research.

Probably the most useful field of study I found to be that of blood platelet stimulation and Factors I, II & III.  Factor IV deals with heparin so it doesn't much apply to this field of application so you could probably skip that.  The Platelet Factors really become the foundation of interaction between the broadhead and the target.  And the basis for disproving most of the blade and metallurgical conjecture and supposition.

When all was said and done open-mindedness and my high school science classes probably held the answers to 85-90% of what questions pertained to flight and force.  If the mind is not over come with preconceived notions toward a wanted conclusion you really do not need a college professor or an aerospace engineer to tell you why static force is the exact opposite of arrow related penetration.  You really do not need a degree in physics to understand that a car is more aerodynamic with it's windows rolled up than with it's windows rolled down.  And you don't really need to spend weeks at the library downloading articles on microfiche to understand why forcing air through three circles at 300 fps is less efficient that air passing past three single sharpened blades.

I am not sure how much of my research I still have after moving and cleaning house over the past 30 years.  But if you really need a head start on authors and proper direction of focus I can see what I might be able to dig up.  But again, most of my research outside the medical/clinical portions simply reassured the fact that the majority of what most people find confusing in broadhead design is marketing spin and fancy verbiage clouding the stream of clear thought and common sense

[John B]

I see, seems like you have really done your research. I still don't understand how these broadheads would be less effective than a 3 blade. Other than aerodynamics, which was my first thought looking at them, and I feel like a curved blade would be more likely to break. How could the Toxic leaving a bigger hole in an animal be worse than a 3 or 4 blade.

I'm just curious because I'm brand new to archery. I picked up some of the Cyclones (3 curved blades) while getting my new bow set up. I have already came to the conclusion I won't use them because they destroy targets, so I don't want to practice with them.

[turkeyfeather]

I see, seems like you have really done your research. I still don't understand how these broadheads would be less effective than a 3 blade. Other than aerodynamics, which was my first thought looking at them, and I feel like a curved blade would be more likely to break. How could the Toxic leaving a bigger hole in an animal be worse than a 3 or 4 blade.

I'm just curious because I'm brand new to archery. I picked up some of the Cyclones (3 curved blades) while getting my new bow set up. I have already came to the conclusion I won't use them because they destroy targets, so I don't want to practice with them.

I will tell you from experience the major difference is friction. Those have so much more surface area and create so much more friction that the penetration on them is horrible.

[RadSav]

I see, seems like you have really done your research. I still don't understand how these broadheads would be less effective than a 3 blade. Other than aerodynamics, which was my first thought looking at them, and I feel like a curved blade would be more likely to break. How could the Toxic leaving a bigger hole in an animal be worse than a 3 or 4 blade.

I'm just curious because I'm brand new to archery. I picked up some of the Cyclones (3 curved blades) while getting my new bow set up. I have already came to the conclusion I won't use them because they destroy targets, so I don't want to practice with them.

Well I am one of the few that doesn't pay much attention to the whole penetration debate.  If using the modern compound bow penetration is usually the least of my worries.  My concern is and always has been #1: putting the arrow in the right spot.  #2: putting the animal on the ground as fast and humanely as possible. and #3: Assuring rapid recovery if I fail to achieve #1 resulting in a failure of #2.

The more surface area you apply to a broadhead the harder it is to achieve #1.  The more you manipulate the passage of air across a broadhead the more resistance or friction you create.  This friction works against the energy stored in the front half of the arrow.  Not a problem if all is perfect, but increases the chance of yaw when environments are less than perfect.  And in the field hunting "less than perfect" is more often the rule than the exception.

The likelihood of a six blade broadhead cutting a vessel within the path diameter that was unable to be reached by a three or four blade broadhead would be very rare.  The perceived notion that the "hole" or wound is larger is false.  It is only different in geometric shape.  And what minute potential increase that might have is offset by the increased suction of air and debris into the wound channel.  This air and debris stimulates the surface of the platelets and promotes coagulation and hemostasis.  We as bowhunters want to prolong the effects of clotting and hemostasis rather than encourage it.  This is done with a very smooth, extremely sharp blade with little introduction of stimulants like oxygen, debris and roughness or flaps.

There is also a potential "coma effect" similar to that created by hydraulic shock (different than hydrostatic shock) in bullet wounding yet triggered in an exact opposite manner.  I will not go into that here as it is a rather difficult process to describe.  But I mention it here as it can only be achieved when a super sharp blade transfers absolute minimal energy to the target and stimulates a minimal platelet reaction.  With all but an absolute perfect shot that is unlikely when when using a broadhead as ragged and restricting as the Toxic or even worse the completely dull Atom.

And then, as mentioned before in earlier threads, my biggest concern with the Toxic is in regards to non-vital wounding.  While big game animals can be amazingly tough and recover from wounds that would most certainly disable us humans they are as vulnerable to infection as we are.  A deep penetrating tube of dead tissue becomes a petri dish for bacteria. It also becomes a barrier inhibiting the path of cells needed to complete the full stages of wound repair.  And the longer it takes for the repair to complete the greater the chance that dead tissue and bacteria will have a negative effect on the health of the animal.

Modern broadheads, when kept exceptionally sharp, are an extremely effective killing tool.  No need really exists for a gimmick with false promise of something more than the science is capable of.  And when the potential for negatives outweigh the potential for improvement I tend to prefer proven designs with a positive history rather than marketing hype and the allure of a holy grail. 

[John B]

Thank you RadSav, that cleared it up for me.

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

Thank you RadSav, that cleared it up for me.

   As always Radsav with the truth!

[RadSav]

Thank you RadSav, that cleared it up for me.

Sorry I didn't fully understand your question the first time.