Toxic broadheads! Look awesome!

[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.