The new Muzzy broadhead trocar.

[kingfisher82]

What you guys think about the new muzzy?

[sakoshooter]

Pics? Link?

[D-Rock425]

 

[Crunchy]

I am not a big muzzy fan.  Sticking with my slicktricks.

[kingfisher82]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0RrevrHV1XA

[BOWHUNTER45]

I will take a Slick Trick over any Muzzy ...and I never tried a Slick Trick 

[kingfisher82]

I've never had any trouble with a muzzy there is a reason they haven't changed in years. If its not broke don't change it

[BOWHUNTER45]

I've never had any trouble with a muzzy there is a reason they haven't changed in years. If its not broke don't change it

Yeah but they pretty much copied the Wasp Design and I know The Wasp is the better of the 2 ....just my 

[sakoshooter]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0RrevrHV1XA

The link doesn't work for me. At least the video doesn't.

As for Muzzy, good broadhead, especially for the time years ago but most broadhead manufacturers have since thickened their blades but Muzzy hasn't.

[RadSav]

Nice of them to bring back some of the old Rocky Mountain heads.  If you like it...buy it.  Better than most out there these days.

[xXx Archery]

looks good wont be out tell may?

[RadSav]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0RrevrHV1XA

The link doesn't work for me. At least the video doesn't.

As for Muzzy, good broadhead, especially for the time years ago but most broadhead manufacturers have since thickened their blades but Muzzy hasn't.

How thick is thick enough?  Thicker the blade the steeper the hone and the harder it is to get them to cut well.  Deeper the vents the more oxygen vacuumed into the wound and the faster coagulation sets in.  The thicker the blades the more displacement of air and drag you have in flight.  Thick blades are great when you are shooting steel drums and sinter blocks.  But how thick is thick enough when it comes to shooting animals.

I've killed literally hundreds with the old Savora .015" blade out of the Swept-Wing broadhead.  Never one single failure.  Was I just lucky?  Or was it thick enough?  I've had failures with .027" Thunderheads.  Was that not thick enough?  I've taken a couple dozen animals with the old .015" WASP Cam-Lok without a single failure.  Luck?  Or was it thick enough.  Shot one animal with the Magnus Stinger and had a failure.  Was that not thick enough?

I think blade thickness is a great topic for selling broadheads and shooting steel barrels.  In killing anything moose and smaller I just don't see it being an issue.  And there is some solid science that leads one to believe that thick enough to hold together and thin enough to optimize flight and terminal performance is better than the thickness required to kill a steel drum and cement blocks.

[RadSav]

Just to be clear.  I am in no way a Muzzy fan.  Been trying to talk guys out of using them for more than 20 years.  It's just the blade thickness debate that drives me insane.

I do think the new company embracing the Barrie Rocky Mountain side will be a great influence and benefit to the product line.

[D-Rock425]

Never shot muzzy not sure I ever will. 

[MLBowhunting]

not a muzzy fan also but i did shoot the rocky mountain premieres many years back. 

[BOWHUNTER45]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0RrevrHV1XA

The link doesn't work for me. At least the video doesn't.

As for Muzzy, good broadhead, especially for the time years ago but most broadhead manufacturers have since thickened their blades but Muzzy hasn't.

How thick is thick enough?  Thicker the blade the steeper the hone and the harder it is to get them to cut well.  Deeper the vents the more oxygen vacuumed into the wound and the faster coagulation sets in.  The thicker the blades the more displacement of air and drag you have in flight.  Thick blades are great when you are shooting steel drums and sinter blocks.  But how thick is thick enough when it comes to shooting animals.

I've killed literally hundreds with the old Savora .015" blade out of the Swept-Wing broadhead.  Never one single failure.  Was I just lucky?  Or was it thick enough?  I've had failures with .027" Thunderheads.  Was that not thick enough?  I've taken a couple dozen animals with the old .015" WASP Cam-Lok without a single failure.  Luck?  Or was it thick enough.  Shot one animal with the Magnus Stinger and had a failure.  Was that not thick enough?

I think blade thickness is a great topic for selling broadheads and shooting steel barrels.  In killing anything moose and smaller I just don't see it being an issue.  And there is some solid science that leads one to believe that thick enough to hold together and thin enough to optimize flight and terminal performance is better than the thickness required to kill a steel drum and cement blocks.

I love how you explain things  Thickness does not mean anything ...Depends on what type of steel they are using ...A thinner steel will flex alot better than a thicker one which will allow the blades to flex as it passes threw the animal and comes in contact with bones or what have you !Muzzy seems to be following Wasp and many think this is o.k I do not ...Wasp has been around along time and finally fine tuned their broadheads to be one of the deadliest broadheads on the market ... Wasp started out with a longer type broadhead ( Caml-lok ) and over the years have shortened their type broadheads coming up with the Wasp Bullet and Wasp Boss ....Muzzy again has figured out that a longer and wider cutting diameter is not neccesarily the answer and again has started designing a shorter profile broadhead like the MAX4 100 GR...again almost a copy cat of the Wasp boss ...

[JamesK.]

I shot muzzys for 2 years and didn't have any real complaints. I bought a new bow recently and could not get them to shoot straight at a faster fps. Switched to G5 Strikers and they shoot great so far.

[kingfisher82]

So much negitivity, I know the markets were very competitive in the 70's and still are today. But it's everyone personal prefence what they like and what they do not. It's like I'm a pse guy but I don't bash other conpanys on there products. It would be like saying a Mathews bow makes a hell of a good walffle, but I shot them there good bows but the grip didn't fit me. Right and the draw wasn't that smooth. But they do the job. But this thread I created wasn't for bashing muzzy it was just putting out there that there kinda getting with the times and putting a new head on the market and changeing there packing for their products

[RadSav]

Muzzy seems to be following Wasp and many think this is o.k I do not ...Wasp has been around along time and finally fine tuned their broadheads to be one of the deadliest broadheads on the market ... Wasp started out with a longer type broadhead ( Caml-lok ) and over the years have shortened their type broadheads coming up with the Wasp Bullet and Wasp Boss ....Muzzy again has figured out that a longer and wider cutting diameter is not neccesarily the answer and again has started designing a shorter profile broadhead like the MAX4 100 GR...again almost a copy cat of the Wasp boss ...

Are you drinking again?   It almost sounded like you were saying Muzzy is copying WASP.  That's some thin ice your walking on.  Be careful!

And before people start getting too excited about the "NEW"  Muzzy Trocar remember they are now a RAGE product.  RAGE bought Barrie Archery/Rocky Mountain Broadheads.  The original RAGE patent was actually a Rocky Mountain patent used on the RMB Snyper.  The new Muzzy Trocar was originally a Rocky Mountain product as well.  If memory serves me correct RMB launched it in 2004 or 2005 under the name "Turbo". 

And, if I am not mistaken the RMB "Ironhead 100" which was a short blade/profile broadhead with a longer leading point preceded the WASP Boss.  So one could, if they are playing the who copied who game, say that WASP copied the Muzzy "Trocar" Point and the Rocky Mountain blade profile.  All of which are now under the RAGE umbrella.

And they all copied Savora's one piece ferrule design. The use of a razor blade specifically designed for hunting and archery arrowheads was a Savora first as well.  So who copied who?   And of course we could dive even deeper into broadhead history and start talking about the "Missle Spike" if we wanted to figure out who started the short steep blade profile and long leading point. 

But, perhaps it's all just a simple fact of broadhead evolution.

[duckmen1]

My problem with muzzy broad heads is when I spin tested and got them spinning and flying good each arrow would fly great but hit slightly different spot than another arrow. Not the case with shuttle ts and slick tricks.

[sakoshooter]

The first deer I ever shot with a Wasp cam loc when they first came out was hit a bit high and in the spine. I recovered the deer after shooting it again. The first shot lost every bit of blade. Broke all three completely. Thick enough? I think not. Or was I just unlucky? I've never tagged a steel drum and don't plan on it but .010 or .015 in addition to .025 makes a big difference in blade strength in my opinion.

[RadSav]

The first deer I ever shot with a Wasp cam loc when they first came out was hit a bit high and in the spine. I recovered the deer after shooting it again. The first shot lost every bit of blade. Broke all three completely. Thick enough? I think not. Or was I just unlucky? I've never tagged a steel drum and don't plan on it but .010 or .015 in addition to .025 makes a big difference in blade strength in my opinion.

Stainless?  All of us broadhead manufacturers back then heat treated that crappy stainless way to hard.

The .010" blades were definitely too thin.  Sharp as heck, but too fragile.  Plus back in those days most blade heat treating was hard to control and we got a good number that would break just by dropping them on the floor.  Savora then came out with the .015" (50% thicker!!) and most of that seemed to stop.  But he spent a lot of time working with Weick to develop the grind angles and the heat treating parameters that made them so efficient.  I took two elk with spine shots, a couple bear where I broke the front shoulders and also took a cow elk by shooting straight down and through the skull.  Never a failure. 

Then "Experts" started telling us we had to use stainless steel.  That just might be the one thing that set the broadhead industry back two decades.  Especially those early stainless blades before Gillette helped develop AEB-L.  I did a good bit of the lab work on testing those blades.  They were so awful I chose not to do any of the field testing with them.  Had I you can be assured my "No failure" record would have been busted for sure.  The sharpness of those early stainless blades through the microscope was like looking at a bandsaw blade.  Absolutely terrible stuff.  But the demand for stainless by the experts drove WASP, Savora and Satelite into offering wide spread product choices.  Satelite made their .010" Aero in stainless leading most states to outlaw the use of .010" blades.

Later the development of adding cryogenic chill plates into the stainless heat treating process greatly improved the consistency and durability of good stainless blades (I use that term comparatively) and the stainless broadheads improved greatly.  They still had to be made softer than carbon.  They still could not be ground to the level of sharpness as a high carbon blade.  But at least you could expect consistant performance even though through the scope the edge still looked like a saw blade made from aluminum foil.

Then Savora developed the Titan broadhead with .020" blades and mistakenly took it to S.H.O.T. before having the proper blade dies in hand.  With health issues and financial issues stemming from some theft and issues related to the development and supply of the Cam-Shaft arrows he did not make that product to market before Herter's archery expert and designer Bob Barrie brought us the Rocky Mountain Razor.  The Razor was .020" stainless (100% thicker than the original .010" blades of the original WASP that used the Chic Injector blade and Satelite's Aero) with the highest quality stainless of the time, heat treated to perfection and ground with Savora's Titan blade angles.  It was hard but not too hard, durable and as effective as any stainless blade up to the development by Gillette and Uddeholm's AEB-L.  And finally the Experts had what they wanted and told the world that stainless was the greatest.

Years later Andy Simo brought us the Thunderhead 125 and the world of broadheads changed forever.  .020" just was not good enough.  Now everyone wanted bigger, thicker blades.  And fewer and fewer people gave a damn about broadhead sharpness.  So what if you had to blood trail further, could not afford to replace your blades often, and companies felt the need to try Asian suppliers of sub-par materials.  Thickness and shooting steel drums and aluminum plate is all that mattered.  Some companies did their very best to keep the quality of their blades high.  Simo's NAP at that time made it a high priority as did Barrie's Rocky Mountain.  They had their blades built by Crescent/Weick who was the world leader in sporting razors.  But the average person still could not afford to replace their blades with the amount of regularity they had before.  And why?  Stainless doesn't rust!  Or does it   There is a reason it is not called "rustless"

I would say that with today's materials and processing equipment a good .015" high carbon razor heat treated properly is thick enough to reliably work in all but the steepest blade angled broadheads.  But .020" would be better in every respect except the ever so minute disadvantage of sharpness.  Over the last 20 years the .020" carbon has been my blade of choice and has never let me, my hunting partners or the wife down once.  Even with today's great stainless and proper heat treating I believe .020" would be the minimum thickness I would be willing to try.  However, in .020" stainless, if the blades are manufactured correctly I wouldn't choose a .025" or thicker blade ground poorly or heat treated poorly above it. So I would say .020" stainless is good enough - with the condition that poor grinding, poor material and poor heat treating even .060" is not enough with stainless.

Well, I could go on, but bed is calling, I fear my lack of sleep is turning into a rambling and I'm sure any more and I'd be writing an article instead of a post.

[BOWHUNTER45]

  No you just wrote a book .... But well done again ... Its all good guys ...Like I said before, I just like  nothen ment by what I say .. I am a firm believer in using whats works best for you ..Thats why I have shot Wasp for well over 25yrs and Hornaday bullets for even more 

[sakoshooter]

  However, in .020" stainless, if the blades are manufactured correctly I wouldn't choose a .025" or thicker blade ground poorly or heat treated poorly above it. So I would say .020" stainless is good enough - with the condition that poor grinding, poor material and poor heat treating even .060" is not enough with stainless.

I appreciate the info Radsav and agree for the most part.
Let's be fair though and compare  .020 or .025 tempered and sharpened correctly to .035 or .040 of the same. I would pic the thicker. But that's just me.
And by the way, it was Muzzy that started the 'steel drum' testing if memory serves, with their steel tips.

[RadSav]

  However, in .020" stainless, if the blades are manufactured correctly I wouldn't choose a .025" or thicker blade ground poorly or heat treated poorly above it. So I would say .020" stainless is good enough - with the condition that poor grinding, poor material and poor heat treating even .060" is not enough with stainless.

I appreciate the info Radsav and agree for the most part.
Let's be fair though and compare  .020 or .025 tempered and sharpened correctly to .035 or .040 of the same. I would pic the thicker. But that's just me.
And by the way, it was Muzzy that started the 'steel drum' testing if memory serves, with their steel tips.

I personally would never take .040." over .025" in stainless.  Thing is you are talking sharpness and terminal performance.  If you use the same hone angles on both the edge is just as fragile on one as it is the other.  But rarely are the same hone angles used.  Plus one of the most impartant factors in broadhead design is trying to prolong coagulation.  The thicker rear blade surface and vents create a vacuum when they enter the soft tissue.  If you watch them enter ballistic gel you'll notice a much larger bubble on most thick blade broadheads.  .030" with a good grind and hone would be a nice stainless compromise IMO.

When it comes to shooting plates?  Barrie was the one that started that.  They would send all their qualified dealers a broadhead that was shot into aluminum plate as a counter display.  The idea was to take away Savora's huge market share by showing their point was tougher.  That was before the Muzzy we know entered the market place.

[sakoshooter]

Way before razor blade type broadheads came about I was a field tester for the 'old' "Magnum" broadheads. Both 3 and 4 blade designs. Late 60's, maybe early 70's. My fav was the 4 blade which was similar to the old Bear w/bleeders or the new Magnus 4 blade except they were one piece and solid as a rock. I still have a few of both. Of the 5 whitetails I shot with them, none had any coaguation problems at all. Most died within sight with two dying on the spot as they were shot lengthwise completey thru. Another whitetail doe hit broadside, the Magnum cut the near upper leg bone completely in half, X'd the heart and exited via the far upper leg bone. No broadhead dameage at all. Just resharpen and kill again.
Shot placement is ultimately the single most important aspect of a broadheads ability to kill quickly but I do need the confidence that it's going to hold together untill it comes to a complete stop whether that's still inside of the animal or in the dirt after a complete pass thru.
It sounds like you're a Muzzy fan Radsav and I'm glad you're having great luck with them.

[RadSav]

I've never shot muzzy.  Never considered them better than what I was shooting.  And the steel in the three blade is terrible. Might try reading my third post in this thread before assuming I shoot Muzzy.  And, as far as I know Muzzy has never produced a carbon blade.  And since I mentioned, "Over the last 20 years the .020" carbon has been my blade of choice" that should assure everyone that I do not shoot Muzzy   Makes me feel dirty just thinking about it - yuck!

Magnums were pretty good though.  I killed a few with it back around '81.  I think Zephyr was making a direct copy for awhile before they went the replacement bleeder route.  Should make them easier to sharpen which was always a pain in the buttox with the four blade Magnum.  But it just doesn't seem right to see them without the fixed bleeder.

All broadheads will work fine with a perfect shot.  It's those marginal shots I worry about.  And where good performance and great performance is separated.