Toxic broadheads...

[RadSav]

Smooth does not mean straight.  It's simply stating there shall be nothing that constitutes a barb.  Though I would never shoot a Toxic head I see absolutely nothing that would make it illegal in WA.

SGTDuffman - Good job on finding the pics of that head.  I tried to find one earlier and could not.  Though I could not remember the name of it either.  Well done

[pianoman9701]

Smooth does not mean straight.  It's simply stating there shall be nothing that constitutes a barb.  Though I would never shoot a Toxic head I see absolutely nothing that would make it illegal in WA.

SGTDuffman - Good job on finding the pics of that head.  I tried to find one earlier and could not.  Though I could not remember the name of it either.  Well done

I would agree with you, Rad. I just don't know if a gamie would, that's all.

[jrebel]

If I draw a second deer tag this year, I will buy a set and see how they fly.  If they fly good I will shoot my doe with it and try to video tape the hunt.  The proof will be in the pudding so to speak.  Wish me luck on my second deer tag. 

[SGTDuffman]

Good luck on your second tag.

I still don't know that good shots made will be proof of much of anything. You could kill an animal with a well placed shot with no head at all on the arrow, but it doesn't make it the best choice. I'm not really concerned how these would perform under ideal conditions, I'm concerned what happens when conditions aren't ideal, but I can't advocate anyone making imperfect shots just to satiate my curiosity. In the event I pull a shot or an animal jumps the string, I want the highest penetration possible. For that a 2 blade is unbeatable. Some fancy new heads might make wider wound channels or more cuts or something, but nothing will out penetrate a 2 blade through bone or tissue. They aren't very high tech or sexy, but there's no arguing against their track record. They've been working on arrows for the last 60,000 years, and on spears before that.

I like seeing companies try to advance the sport and the technology, but there isn't much that hasn't already been tried on broad heads. The vast majority of these "improvements" have failed and why almost all of the most highly regarded or highly lauded broad heads around today are very simple designs. Things like Magnus Stingers/Buzzcut/Snuffer, Muzzy MX series, NAP Hellrazor/Thunderhead, Zwickey, VPA, Alaska Bowhunting, etc are pretty uncomplicated affairs. They are usually 2-3 blade heads, sometimes 4 in the case of some of the Muzzys (which have more blades but they are short in length compared to most 2 or 3 blade styles giving them less surface area and relatively good penetration for a 4 blade). Sometimes they have replaceable blades, but they're all pretty basic in design or function. Generally the ones with the fewest parts are least prone to failures. And the ones with the least drag, or the smallest blade surface area, penetrate the deepest and most reliably. The excuses we give our wives for spending more money on archery stuff might change, but the laws of physics don't. More blade surface = more drag. More drag = less penetration.

We're fast to forget and slow to remember that a lot of the "problems" we face aren't new. Our dads, granddads, and ancestors all wrestled with these same things long before our time. They all tried finding more effective means of putting animals on the ground, and look what the market is left with. Sharp 2 and 3 blade pieces of steel still reign supreme. You can fancy it up by using aircraft grade materials, or serrated blades, or hollow ground this or that, but all the marketing jargon in the world doesn't make it any more than a sharp 2 or 3 sided piece of metal. I don't need to shoot anything to know that a 6 bladed head with curved blades won't out penetrate the 2 blade I have now. I also know it would be a significantly weaker design. It is also at the very legal minimum of what this state allows, being exactly 7/8" wide. It's hard to take them serious when they talk about all their research and how nothing like this has ever been done before. Yes it has, almost 60 years ago and it was a complete failure. Their marketing doesn't make it any easier when they say things like, "The archer will notice when the arrow strikes, the animal’s noticeable will to live is less than traditionally expected in the archery world." C'mon guys. If you use this head, animals lose the will to live?

[RadSav]

Good luck on your second tag.

I still don't know that good shots made will be proof of much of anything. You could kill an animal with a well placed shot with no head at all on the arrow, but it doesn't make it the best choice. I'm not really concerned how these would perform under ideal conditions, I'm concerned what happens when conditions aren't ideal, but I can't advocate anyone making imperfect shots just to satiate my curiosity.

That's exactly it right there  

I personally have witnessed two accidental animal shootings where the archer/bowhunter in the heat of the moment removed a small game pointed arrow from their quiver and killed their animal.  One was a young cow elk shot through the heart with a Judo point and one a 548# blackbear shot through the heart with an old rusty, dirty and heavily chipped Satellite .010" Aero 4 blade.  The elk went 30 yards and expired the bear didn't make it five yards before it expired.  And I have seen with my own eyes a deer shot through the heart with the worlds dullest and most absurd broadhead ever invented - the Atom Broadhead, with a recovery less than 100 yards.  Perfect shots just do not tell us much at all.  Even if the internet is full of bowhunters that have never made a bad shot in their lives   It's still best to error on the side of making a bad hit every once in a while.

Once you start evaluating products based in medical/clinical and metallurgical sciences you begin to start seeing the separation of good and bad in questionable shot placement.  The goal should not be to simply recover an animal with these shots, but to accelerate the recovery and death.  The difference between good, bad and mediocre is quite evident with these hits.

There is also the study of nonvital hits.  This is the area that concerns me the most with soft, dull gimmicky heads like the Toxic.  I do not want to find an animal weeks after a nonvital hit suffering and dying a slow death due to infection and sepsis.  I want to see that animal in full recovery within days or even hours of a nonvital hit.

In '88 I shot what should have been my third P&Y buck.  At 20 yards I thought the heavy quartering away shot was perfect even though it did look a little high.  The buck had run 150 yards down to a flat at the bottom of the clearcut and was doing the wide legged death wobble.  So instead of watch I decided to head back to the truck to get my pack, have some lunch and drop off my bow.  When I returned to the ridgeline where I had taken the shot I could now see the buck scratching or rubbing his neck where the arrow had exited.  Dangit!!!  To high and too far forward!  Back to the truck to get the bow and back on to stalking for another shot.  It was not to be.  Last I saw of that buck he was running full bore headed for the next county

I was returning to the same location the very next weekend to see if I could get another try at the big buck.  About two miles from my destination I had a doe walk across the road in front of me.  I stopped to watch her make her way up through a clearcut.  I got out of the truck with my camera hoping for a good picture when I heard another deer coming up onto the road.  Another doe makes it to the road, while the buck I had shot the week before is riding her in an attempt to breed.  He's feeling pretty darned good!!    And pays little attention to me as I scramble to get back to the truck and get my bow out of the case.  About ten minutes of bird dogging later the big boy takes another one of my Aviatubes tipped with a Swept-Wing 4.  This time from arse to throat and he makes it less than 20 yards before going down.  Thank goodness for a quick recovery and some stupid good luck after my first nonvital shot the week before.

Further investigation of my first shot showed the broadhead had entered behind the left shoulder blade, traveled over the top of the spine in front of the shoulder and exited mid neck on the far side.  Sure looked like a good shot the week before, but too much angle, too far forward and too high.  Soft dull bladed meat worm creating broadheads would have done nothing to help me recover that buck the week prior.  But I would dang near guarantee that buck would not be hanging on my wall today if I had been shooting one.  Coyotes and ravens would probably have been the only ones enjoying him.  And I would have felt horrible knowing he had met a long and slow death.

[spotnstalkmuleys]

people keep talking about these broadheads ike the wont penetrate bone. remember they have a hardened steel chisel piont, they are not cut on contact. also watch this video. and remember that steel is flexible and bone is brittle. i dont think this broadhead will have any problem with a deers shoulder let alone ribs. i see shards of bone resulting from a hit. 

Toxic Broadhead Test: Steel Barrel

[Kain]

Interesting design for sure.  I like that companies are looking for better designs even if this one might not be it.  I see a lot of people that are critical of anything that is different and resistant to change most of the time without even seeing it or shooting it.  Never really understood that.  I remember the chisel tip vs cut on contact debates.  2-3-4 blades.  More cutting surface can be good and bad.  Obviously adds to resistance and would change penetration but can also cause faster bleed outs.  A lot of us are overpowered and could sacrifice some resistance and still get passthroughs.  On a perfect hit something like this might be superior.  On a marginal hit who knows. 

I dont think I would shoot these just because of the damage they would do to my target.     But then again if it does that kind of damage to my target then maybe that is the right choice for an animal after all. 

If it flies straight I doubt there would be that big of a difference in lethality.