bh cutting diameter. how small?

[Charlie3]

Obviously you will get strong opinions on the diameter/2 blade vs 3 blade vs 4 blade debate.

I prefer narrow 2 blade design. My two most recently harvested deer did not leave a good blood trail after putting a Grizzly Kodiak through them...but then again I didn't look for one since they both went less than 50 yards. Blood trail becomes a mute point if you make a good shot.

[Rod in SC]

Chuck Adams and Paul Schaffer killed most of their big game with file sharpened Zwickey Eskimos. They start out of the package at 1 1/8 so by the time they are sharpened a few times they are 1 inch or less.  I shot a doe yesterday with a 1 inch Eskimo and she left good blood all the way.  Only ran 60 yds.  Some of my best blood trails were with Eskimos. I've shot over a hundred deer with a bunch of different heads over the years and dont believe size of broadhead puts em down any quicker. I guess it could if a multiple blade head caught an artery that a 2 blade missed. But I do know that its easier tracking one with an exit wound and penetration is gonna be optimum with a 1 inch 2 blade.

[DaveT1963]

I guess I will be a dissenting voice here.   Like posted above – why?  What possible advantage would anyone have for shooting the minimum sized broad head you can?  If its good flight there are ways to get that with larger heads.  

I would not consider shooting a large game animal with anything under 1"... I personally prefer closer to 1 1/2 and above myself.  However, width is not the only factor.... how much surface area may be a better determinant?

I have been on enough blood trails where fat, hide, tissue plugged up the hole and they were all but impossible to track.  Yes a well-placed arrow with a sharp small head will kill an animal - no doubt.  But your ability to track the animal with found blood will diminish as the cutting surface does.   I know everyone harps on shot placement….  but EVERYONE, I don’t care how good of a shot they are or think they are will sooner or later get a less than disable shot on a living animal that can completely duck an arrow at 20 yards….. Not to mention that your odds to cut more arteries/veins will increase with the total length of blades being pushed through an animal.  

So let me ask a different question.  In the unlikely event you make a bad shot would you rather have more or less total blade surface length passing through said animal?

Shoot the biggest head you can accurately and efficiently….  Just my personal observation and opinion... your results may be different.

[DaveT1963]

Cut on contact heads do penetrate better then conical heads and only slightly better then expandable heads.  However, many test have also proven that 2 blade Broadheads don't penetrate much further than a three blade head all else being equal.  The old myth that they will blow through bone better just hasn't bore out.

One simple fact remains – Broadheads kill by hemorrhaging,  Hemorrhaging is caused by sharp projectiles cutting through veins, arteries and organs.  The more surface length of the blades the more hemorrhaging that occurs.  Exactly why 3:1 broadheads are so devastating - they seldom only cut a hole that is equal to their width... they turn and deflect and thus often make holes several times the size of their width.

I would use the widest 2-blade I could consistently get both an entry and an exit hole with!

Bisch