Post by: NW-GSP on February 14, 2013, 07:07:36 PM
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=wDKLxpw31VY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DwDKLxpw31VY (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=wDKLxpw31VY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DwDKLxpw31VY)
Post by: RadSav on February 14, 2013, 07:28:11 PM
If any of the guys show up in elk camp with those... :violent1:. They will be kicked out of my camp for life!
Meat worms :bash: :bash: :bash:
Post by: Worldhunter on February 14, 2013, 08:12:03 PM
Post by: NW-GSP on February 14, 2013, 08:53:02 PM
Looks like they would be something to try
Post by: DoubleJ on February 14, 2013, 08:54:04 PM
Post by: spur_ride on February 14, 2013, 09:04:13 PM
Post by: NW-GSP on February 14, 2013, 09:11:10 PM
:yeah: Im with you there DoubleJ. a milk jug is one thing but a shoulder or rib bone is a whole new ballgame
:yeah: I agree but no sense in bashing till tested. It would be interesting to see bone tests
Post by: RadSav on February 14, 2013, 09:48:57 PM
:yeah: Im with you there DoubleJ. a milk jug is one thing but a shoulder or rib bone is a whole new ballgame
:yeah: 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.
Post by: Worldhunter on February 14, 2013, 10:56:28 PM
But seriously...
When is milk jug season in WA?
Post by: D-Rock425 on February 15, 2013, 05:46:51 AM
Post by: 724wd on February 15, 2013, 09:28:02 AM
Post by: jechicdr on February 15, 2013, 07:01:05 PM
Post by: D-Rock425 on February 15, 2013, 07:03:39 PM
Post by: MLBowhunting on February 15, 2013, 07:09:28 PM
Post by: h2ofowlr on February 15, 2013, 09:26:58 PM
Post by: RadSav on February 15, 2013, 09:31:46 PM
Are they even legal here in Washington?
Don't see how they would be illegal in the state. Not barbed and legal in dimensions. :dunno: I am certainly not encouraging their use though.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on February 20, 2013, 03:32:10 PM
Post by: bow-n-head on February 20, 2013, 07:50:31 PM
Post by: Austrian Hunter on February 20, 2013, 08:38:11 PM
Post by: worldsworsthunter on February 23, 2013, 07:12:05 PM
Post by: lilswab on February 24, 2013, 08:30:59 AM
So since we are all freinds let me tell you what I do know. :twocents:
I have actually looked at the head at the ATA show this year in Louisville, Kentucky.
They are legal in for use in Washington State. Not barbed and over the minimum cutting diameter of 7/8"
I had a long conversation with Chris Rager (inventor/owner) and his son about the effectiveness of the head and from the sounds of it the Toxic head has some good merits. Massive meat worms for devastating wounds.
My first thought was the penetration would be horrible especailly for bad shots. After talking to Chris and dicussing what the blades do when they hit bone or a rib and there is some sound science behind it. The blades actually move around the bone. In my unexpert opionnion in would love to try them on a deer to SEE for myself before I write them off as the latest gimmick.
I look at archery like this. Todays latest gimmick is tomorrows MUST have...like Rage Broadheads, The Fall-Away Arrow Rest, Lighted Nocks, Scent Killer, and more.
I am not saying the Toxic will replace my Trophy Taker Shuttle T-Locks, but what I am saying is don't knock the Toxic Broadhead until you have tried it. :twocents:
Post by: 724wd on February 24, 2013, 10:04:23 AM
now, perhaps with today's faster bows they'd be ok? he was shooting them out of recurves and the first generation of compounds. but i gotta say, why mess with what works?
Post by: RadSav on February 24, 2013, 01:59:44 PM
Remember this phrase from the movie The Jerk, "Well, as long as we have a voucher!" :o
What part of a broadhead actually makes it lethal? Why? What actually makes a broadhead fly well? Why? How does penetration and over penetration apply to the interaction with the target? Why? What are the benefits of prolonged coagulation? Why? What happens to the animal in a nonlethal broadhead strike with each blade style? Why? Are their benefits to forcing air into a circle at high speed? Why? What happens when you stimulate blood platlets? Why? What are the two most common stimulants of blood platlets? Why? Do the benefits of so called "Meat Worms" outweigh the negatives? Why?
Sorry, but the Toxic spin doesn't change the science. And the sales spin doesn't answers those questions in a comprehensive scientific manner. Testing should be done to support the application of proven science. Not to hopefully prove that conjecture and supposition might have some element of truth. So as I see it the only "Speculating" being done is by those believing there is, or might be, a benefit to this type of design.
Myself? I will stick with my straight, super sharp, edge maintaining, proven science, and historically superior blades that prolong coagulation and lead to the quick recovery of the animal. And in the event I make a bad nonlethal hit I can find some comfort in the fact the wound will heal with a low risk of infection and minimal impact on the animal. Meaning I will never ever shoot a Toxic.
Post by: npaull on February 26, 2013, 07:37:32 PM
Post by: SGTDuffman on April 18, 2013, 10:42:31 PM
Post by: grundy53 on July 24, 2014, 08:16:10 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on July 24, 2014, 09:07:51 AM
Post by: xXLojackXx on July 24, 2014, 12:11:06 PM
Post by: MLBowhunting on July 24, 2014, 12:27:21 PM
Post by: RadSav on July 24, 2014, 12:47:56 PM
Post by: h20hunter on July 24, 2014, 12:50:12 PM
The Atom......or the Toxic.....
Which do you choose!
Post by: RadSav on July 24, 2014, 01:00:58 PM
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.
Post by: Russ McDonald on July 24, 2014, 01:03:26 PM
Post by: Roosevelt on July 24, 2014, 01:10:18 PM
Post by: Russ McDonald on July 24, 2014, 02:02:51 PM
Post by: MLBowhunting on July 24, 2014, 02:42:42 PM
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on July 24, 2014, 06:17:53 PM
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! :chuckle:
Post by: Rock7 on July 26, 2014, 01:11:17 PM
Post by: Wood on July 27, 2014, 08:43:31 PM
Post by: Terry Dean on July 28, 2014, 02:31:55 PM
Post by: bowjunkie on August 08, 2014, 08:43:40 AM
Post by: John B on August 08, 2014, 11:57:26 PM
:yeah: Im with you there DoubleJ. a milk jug is one thing but a shoulder or rib bone is a whole new ballgame
:yeah: 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?
Post by: RadSav on August 09, 2014, 02:35:50 AM
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. :yike: 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 ;)
Post by: John B on August 09, 2014, 09:01:17 AM
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.
Post by: turkeyfeather on August 09, 2014, 11:06:20 AM
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 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.
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.
Post by: RadSav on August 09, 2014, 03:00:22 PM
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.
Post by: John B on August 10, 2014, 11:44:28 AM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on August 10, 2014, 02:51:13 PM
Thank you RadSav, that cleared it up for me.
:yeah: As always Radsav with the truth! :tup:
Post by: RadSav on August 10, 2014, 03:15:29 PM
Thank you RadSav, that cleared it up for me.
Sorry I didn't fully understand your question the first time.