Broadheads.

[Steve D]

Sharp broadheads are a MUST. They were designed before the high speed bows started creating pass throughs with the intent of having them continue to cut while the arrow is still inside the deer and it continues to walk or run after being hit with an arrow. A broadhead kills by hemorrhaging not by shock. The sharper the broadhead is...the more it will cut if a pass through does not take place.

 Anyone hunting with dull broadheads is asking for trouble and is not doing a deer justice.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Steve D

[Enigma]

11 hours ago, Core said:

That is interesting.

I'm still not convinced that sharpness matters that much on these. I've googled it a lot and I've not yet come upon a single actual scientific test that demonstrates better penetration with a sharper head.

A couple of points. 

I make the assumption that the goal is not penetration per se, but the quick and humane death of your quarry. My number one goal as an ethical bow hunter, maybe not yours.

 Let's begin here . . .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Perhaps we should not discount, what, 5 or 10 thousand years of experience that a sharp object kills more quickly than a dull one. Cavewoman #1 throws a dull rock at a deer and it bounces off.  Cavewoman #2 just happens by chance to throw a sharp rock and the deer starts to bleed and eventually dies. A lil thing called critical thinking kicks in, humans are pretty good at this, maybe a little evolution, and over time it just becomes common knowledge that the sharp object throwers are eating well and surviving and the folks throwing dull objects starve. Hmm . . 

Fast forward a bit. 2019. The same scenario would still apply would it not? But let's not base our conclusion on past experience. Let's be modern and "google it". May I suggest your inability to locate "a single actual scientific test" confirming your assumption after searching "alot" demonstrates a modern, superficial and limited examination of the subject. Step away from the keyboard, put your thinking cap on for a second and actually fire a neuron or two in your gray matter. Forming a rational, logical and informed opinion on settled subjects such as this require you to actually use that brain that's been evolving for thousands of years.

If the subject is still perplexing and you indeed require some sort of experimental "test" to settle the matter, I would highly suggest you familiarize yourself with the following:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I'd hate to see anyone spend valuable time testing a hypothesis, producing and summarizing data that cannot be scrutinized to common scientific standards. Feel free to pm your preliminary experimental design and I'd be glad to offer positive input. 

But seriously. A little perspective may be in order. You ll spend how many hours on stand or in the field this year waiting for your shot opportunity? Dont you owe it to your quarry, and quite frankly yourself, to ensure the greatest chance of success? So take 30m st most, sharpen them to the best of your ability. What, 3 bh to take afield? Simple. 

 

 

 

 

 

[crappyice]

I do not use the Montec G5s but have tracked and recovered a handful of deer that have met their demise by well placed shots using Montecs all within 100 yards.
Can someone explain why those heads in particular seem to leave little to no bloodtrail? Someone once suggested they were “too sharp” and didnt do enough internal damage yet deer were dead on their feet. I have no skin in this fame but have always wondered


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chrisw]

I do not use the Montec G5s but have tracked and recovered a handful of deer that have met their demise by well placed shots using Montecs all within 100 yards.
Can someone explain why those heads in particular seem to leave little to no bloodtrail? Someone once suggested they were “too sharp” and didnt do enough internal damage yet deer were dead on their feet. I have no skin in this fame but have always wondered


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have used those heads in the past with the same experience. I'll never use them again, I found every deer I shot but sometimes with no blood. I'm prone to think it has something to do with the blade shape/angles that once they make a hole allows the hole to easily close right back up. The only thing I know for sure is I will not be using them again.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Core]

9 hours ago, Enigma said:

A couple of points. 

I make the assumption that the goal is not penetration per se, but the quick and humane death of your quarry. My number one goal as an ethical bow hunter, maybe not yours.

 Let's begin here . . .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

Perhaps we should not discount, what, 5 or 10 thousand years of experience that a sharp object kills more quickly than a dull one. Cavewoman #1 throws a dull rock at a deer and it bounces off.  Cavewoman #2 just happens by chance to throw a sharp rock and the deer starts to bleed and eventually dies. A lil thing called critical thinking kicks in, humans are pretty good at this, maybe a little evolution, and over time it just becomes common knowledge that the sharp object throwers are eating well and surviving and the folks throwing dull objects starve. Hmm . . 

Fast forward a bit. 2019. The same scenario would still apply would it not? But let's not base our conclusion on past experience. Let's be modern and "google it". May I suggest your inability to locate "a single actual scientific test" confirming your assumption after searching "alot" demonstrates a modern, superficial and limited examination of the subject. Step away from the keyboard, put your thinking cap on for a second and actually fire a neuron or two in your gray matter. Forming a rational, logical and informed opinion on settled subjects such as this require you to actually use that brain that's been evolving for thousands of years.

If the subject is still perplexing and you indeed require some sort of experimental "test" to settle the matter, I would highly suggest you familiarize yourself with the following:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I'd hate to see anyone spend valuable time testing a hypothesis, producing and summarizing data that cannot be scrutinized to common scientific standards. Feel free to pm your preliminary experimental design and I'd be glad to offer positive input. 

But seriously. A little perspective may be in order. You ll spend how many hours on stand or in the field this year waiting for your shot opportunity? Dont you owe it to your quarry, and quite frankly yourself, to ensure the greatest chance of success? So take 30m st most, sharpen them to the best of your ability. What, 3 bh to take afield? Simple. 

I find your post interesting because despite a verbose discussion of the topic, along with some barbs against my critical thinking, and finally a recommendation to read about the scientific method (strangely targeted at me, even though I'm the one actually appealing to it), you also failed to produce a single thing approaching it. In fact, you found the exact same data on this topic as I did.

You allude to being content with the random discoveries of a caveman ten thousand years ago. I think we can do better, you know because of like the scientific method. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Core

[left field]

I find it odd that hunters would go to extreme lengths to wash their clothes and bodies to disguise their scent, purchase expensive clothing to mimic their surrounds, trudge through the woods in darkness to better be in position at daybreak, not to mention spend hours upon weeks upon years practicing their aim, yet won’t spend 15 minutes ensuring that the only point of contact between all that effort and their goal is as perfect as possible. 

[left field]

Has anyone used Strickland Helix? Single bevel (right or left) that works in conjunction with your fletching to rotate the arrow in flight and upon contact. Apparently you have to back rotate them to remove from a target.

http://www.stricklandsarchery.com/helix.aspx

[biggamefish]

1 hour ago, left field said:

Has anyone used Strickland Helix? Single bevel (right or left) that works in conjunction with your fletching to rotate the arrow in flight and upon contact. Apparently you have to back rotate them to remove from a target.

http://www.stricklandsarchery.com/helix.aspx

I have not used them but I have a buddy that used grizzly single bevels and they penetrate bone better than a double bevel. The twisting motion will actually split the bone apart. It's a crazy concept but that twist does a number on bone. I have heard they are hard to tune though. Again I have not used them myself but have seen there devastation first hand.

[BowmanMike]

1 minute ago, biggamefish said:

I have not used them but I have a buddy that used grizzly single bevels and they penetrate bone better than a double bevel. The twisting motion will actually split the bone apart. It's a crazy concept but that twist does a number on bone. I have heard they are hard to tune though. Again I have not used them myself but have seen there devastation first hand.

Oh,the head itself has a twist to it? Sounds pretty intriguing.

[phade]

Current broadheads are sharper than scalpels used on humans for surgery. At a certain point, we're past the point of positive ROI.

[left field]

6 minutes ago, phade said:

Current broadheads are sharper than scalpels used on humans for surgery. At a certain point, we're past the point of positive ROI.

So hold steady until they perfect lasers? 

More than anyone wanted to know about the rotation of a single bevel broadhead in flesh.

 

[biggamefish]

36 minutes ago, BowmanMike said:

Oh,the head itself has a twist to it? Sounds pretty intriguing.

The actual broadhead doesn't have a twist to it. The idea behind the a single bevel it to keep twisting even when hitting something hard like bone. That is why they say it is important to get the same bevel as your fletching. Right hand fletching right hand bevel. The broadhead is supposed to twist/break and cut its way through instead of just cutting its way through. Kind of like prying its way through the front shoulder useing a twisting motion.

[BowmanMike]

1 hour ago, biggamefish said:

The actual broadhead doesn't have a twist to it. The idea behind the a single bevel it to keep twisting even when hitting something hard like bone. That is why they say it is important to get the same bevel as your fletching. Right hand fletching right hand bevel. The broadhead is supposed to twist/break and cut its way through instead of just cutting its way through. Kind of like prying its way through the front shoulder useing a twisting motion.

Ouch. I watched the video,i may try those BH next year...

[New York Hillbilly]

I went to the hardware store one day to pick up a file, and the clerk asked me if I wanted "this bastard" as he pointed to a file. I thought he was being a smart ass so I said "no" and  pointed to the one next to it and said "gimme that mother f-er there". lol

[Core]

3 hours ago, left field said:

Has anyone used Strickland Helix? Single bevel (right or left) that works in conjunction with your fletching to rotate the arrow in flight and upon contact. Apparently you have to back rotate them to remove from a target.

http://www.stricklandsarchery.com/helix.aspx

Interesting idea. I wonder if the proof is in the pudding (e.g. point of impact consistency). Aiding stability from the front does make some sense.

[moog5050]

4 hours ago, left field said:

Has anyone used Strickland Helix? Single bevel (right or left) that works in conjunction with your fletching to rotate the arrow in flight and upon contact. Apparently you have to back rotate them to remove from a target.

http://www.stricklandsarchery.com/helix.aspx

I bought 3 a few years ago for a recurve.  Never killed a deer with one but they flew well.  The ones I bought just ended up 25g light on my final tune so they didn't see the woods.  I think I actually gave them to someone. 

[BowmanMike]

47 minutes ago, moog5050 said:

I bought 3 a few years ago for a recurve.  Never killed a deer with one but they flew well.  The ones I bought just ended up 25g light on my final tune so they didn't see the woods.  I think I actually gave them to someone. 

Me next please!!

[biggamefish]

3 hours ago, Core said:

Interesting idea. I wonder if the proof is in the pudding (e.g. point of impact consistency). Aiding stability from the front does make some sense.

I don't think they add stability in the front the single bevel is more for a continued twist apon impact to do more damage.  I have heard that they can be tough to tune.