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.
