Mechanical Broadheads

[Buckrub]

there was a kid in cabelas the other day and he was going to get a sight put on his new bow.  he just got a bow two weeks ago and he was asking if he would be able to shoot at 70yrds for deer and you all know the season starts in a couple weeks.  two weeks of shooting a bow and he is ready for 70yrds.   I should of stepped on his bow when he set it down. 
I got my first bow 6 months or so ago and i am confident with a 40yrd shot on level ground, but if i have any kind of incline/decline i probably wouldn't shoot at 40 until i get more practice.

My point exactly....

[Ray]

I read the Ashby article which came home in the mail.

He pretty much has been doing research for several years. He has concluded that they often mechanically fail and more often on angled shots. Also he reported that they are generally a inferior product in several aspects.

I am paraphrasing sort of -
One example. One of the common failures is described:

If someone shot one of these mechanicals at an agle at a critter only one of the blades is deployed and the arrow cartwheeled off the animal and left a flesh wound.

End of my version of paraphrasing

He also noted that almost every single mechanical broadhead was damaged beyond repair or subsequent use and did not match up to the competition in regards to being a strong product. He commented that he would not recommend using any mechanical broadhead on any big game animals. In addition to that he had facts which support that the mechanicals do not penetrate nearly as well as a double blade conventional broadhead. He has studies which describe the brands and models used as well as testing scenarios compared side by side with conventional broadheads. In all his tests he concluded (even with a significantly lower poundage bow) the conventional broadheads outperformed their opposition which were using mechanical broadheads and a higher weight bow of somewhere around 20lbs of draw.

I could get back and read that magazine article some more but his reports were pretty much devastating to mechanical broadheads. Undoubtedly some of his previous studies are available on the internet. http://tradgang.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=24

[tlbradford]

So Ray, since you have read the reports, what is your opinion on single bevel broadheads?

[Ray]

It's hard to argue with his studies. I have never used them but I can definitely understand the concepts of:

1) A strong broad head. Preferably made of a single piece of sharp cutting metal.
2) Structural Integrity of the arrow from the broad head to the rear of the shaft. He has eye opening reports surrounding the failure points on inserts. He seems to have a justification for the tapered arrow.
3) A lot of weight up front makes sense and just overall weight of the arrow in correlation to the game.
4) A good shot.

Back to the point. I think they are a great tool to have ( his reports ) but that a good solid broad head and arrow combination can get the job done on most deer sized animals. If you are going to take shots at elk and larger sized , big boned game often then it might be a good source of information in order to comprehend performance. His studies are often centered around cutting through hide and penetration of bone as well as shot angles.  Including how broad heads rate on penetration into ribs and scapula. I even liked how he talked about the shape of broad heads.

I think they might be the ticket for elk and larger sized critters. Probably not necessary for deer but I have been looking closer at the Silver Flames more than anything. I'm not planning on making any purchases though.

One of the most interesting discoveries is that the multi blade broadheads do not seem to perform as well as the single blade.

He's claiming that hard wood is more durable than carbon on specific tests. E.G. something like Ipe.

[tlbradford]

I pretty much agree with you on all points.  I am going to go with the Silver Flames as well, as soon as I dial in the point weight I need.  I think he has proven without a doubt that the single bevel is far superior if havy bone is hit.  I am not really sold on how it penetrates through hide, soft tissue, and ribs.  In my mind, and without any scientific data to back me up, I want the broadhead to stop turning on impact and for all the energy the arrow expends to go to forward motion. 

I know he is not a fan of vented blades, but I want a little bit of venting to help prevent planing.  He also wants the ferrule to be smooth with no lip, but those silver flames are built like a tank so I'm not worried about that either.

[Hunter Dug]

I carry three fix blade strikers and 3 rage 2 blades, if I get stopped I will say the fixed are for big game, the mecs are for small game. That simple.   

[Hunter Dug]

I have had tremendous success with the rage in the last few years these heads leave holes that if put in any animal will put them down in half the time in half the distance and that is what is important to me. You can talk about this and all its issues for days until you try it for yourself you will never know. 

[Ray]

I don't think they talked about this or that with the studies. They shot into game with them. Hundreds if not thousands of times.

[Lowedog]

The type of equipment some one else uses is the least of my concern.  I use what I like and that is all I care about.  If you actually think that outlawing a certain type of broadhead is preventing people from taking shots beyond there means you are thinking foolishly.  Simple fact is that the majority of hunters no matter what type of weapon they use don't practice much at all.  They will take shots that they shouldn't and game will get wounded.  Nothing you can do about that. 

They can make mechanicals legal tomorrow and it wouldn't bother me a bit.  Doesn't change anything for me.  More people than we know use them in this state and don't even know they are illegal.  Just like they don't know about the 6gr per pound of draw arrow weight rule, or just don't care.

-Lowedog

[Ray]

I certainly have not said that mechanical broadheads make people take shots they normally would have not. However I think that there is a series of reports which is supported by facts and research that indicates they are an inferior product to conventional broadheads in more ways than one and by a long shot.

All some of you guys want to do is talk about how you are being personally judged. That's just a cockamamy side track of the real discussion. It's weak and nobody has done so. Repeating it is a lie.  I can only imagine it is done so you can take your pot shots and justify a poor product. Bottom line. More wounded animals. Maybe you should hunt the animals with steak knives tied on to your arrows for broadheads. Back your favored products with real research and come talking on this subject.

[tlbradford]

Ray, the mechanical broadheads do create a better wound channel in ballistic gel.  And we all know that animals are comprised of ballistic gel.  By the way, I ordered up the Silver Flame 180 grains. 

[Lowedog]

Ray, until you have personally used them, your theory on an inferior product doesn't hold water.  Simple fact is they are illegal.  If they were legalized I wouldn't think that who ever chose to use them is any less of a hunter than someone who hunts with a home made bow and a wooden shaft.  To each his own.

-Lowedog  

[Ray]

It's not a theory. That's where you are wrong. The studies have been published. Almost all of these products from different companies have proven to be brittle, failed to deploy either partially or fully and might as well have the user shooting field tips.

Just because you refuse to read the studies doesn't make them not hold water.

This is the equivalent of using field tips on large game especially considering the failure rates in the studies. Read them yourself and educate yourself. This is not traditional versus modern. This is good products which have a proven record versus plain garbage.

Illegal is right. I'll make sure they never become legal as long as I have any word in it too.

[Ray]

Ray, the mechanical broadheads do create a better wound channel in ballistic gel.  And we all know that animals are comprised of ballistic gel.

Right. No bones at all.

[Lowedog]

It's not a theory. That's where you are wrong. The studies have been published. Almost all of these products from different companies have proven to be brittle, failed to deploy either partially or fully and might as well have the user shooting field tips.

Just because you refuse to read the studies doesn't make them not hold water.

This is the equivalent of using field tips on large game especially considering the failure rates in the studies. Read them yourself and educate yourself. This is not traditional versus modern. This is good products which have a proven record versus plain garbage.

Illegal is right. I'll make sure they never become legal as long as I have any word in it too.

You can find just as much positive literature about them as you can negative probably more.  Why are you so passionate about something that is already illegal? 

There will be a lot of game hit with non lethal shots from perfectly legal BHs here in WA because so many take to the field not properly prepared.  For those that are properly prepared for the shot I don't care what type of BH they use.

As far as traditional vs modern isn't that where you started out?  Where do you draw the line?

-Lowedog