grizzlys? bloodtrails?

[Hattrick]

Thinking about switching to Grizzly 190s because of the great penatration? I had a buddy who used to shoot 160s, he had great penatration but the lousy`s blood trails i ever seen. I've heard other people say the same. Has anybody else experienced this? does the larger 190s bleed better?

[Sharpster]

Blood trails, good or bad have far more to do with shot placement and broadhead sharpness than the broadheads size or blade count.

A well placed, razor sharp Grizzly will leave just as good a blood trail as any other broadhead.

Ron

[Hattrick]

Sharpster,are grizzly`s ur btoadhead of choice?

[hal]

i've used them on deer many times.  i can't tell the difference (in either bloodtrail or ability to kill) between them or the 2 blade magnus or the 2 blade zwickey.  get them sharp and they perform as expected!

[SlowBowinMO]

I wholeheartedly agree with Sharpster, and I've had no bloodtrail issues with Grizzlies.

[Brian Krebs]

well this spring bear hunt; I will be taking pictures.. then we will see for sure. End the whole contraversy. Totally erase any doubts. Completely eliminate the need for the '?' on the keyboard. Close the issue. Be the ultimate of wise.

 I have thought about it; and counted to three...

[Paul Shirek]

Say what you want but a bigger broadhead means a bigger wound to bleed and a bigger hole to release blood. Regardless of where you hit this is true. I'm sure grizzlies are fine, they are just not capable of majic. Penetrate well, yes. As good a blood trail as a bigger cutting head no.

[Ray Hammond]

Most of the stuff I shoot with them dies within sight, very quickly, so I've never noticed much blood except all over the ground where they drop.

[flatbowMB]

Originally posted by Paul Shirek:
Say what you want but a bigger broadhead means a bigger wound to bleed and a bigger hole to release blood. Regardless of where you hit this is true. I'm sure grizzlies are fine, they are just not capable of majic. Penetrate well, yes. As good a blood trail as a bigger cutting head no.

Not if that bigger broadhead has a mediocre level of sharpness compared to a narrower broadhead that is ultra, scary sharp.  You can make a huge hole and still sever a much smaller surface area of blood vessels (capillaries, arterioles, venules, arteries & veins) than what will be severed by a supersharp blade that creates a much smaller hole - even with the exact same shot placement.  The importance of the hole size takes a distant second to the importance of how many capillaries have been severed.

 What some people may consider to be scary sharp can be worlds apart from what another considers to be scary sharp.  Have a look at the video on Sharpster's website where he sharpens a broadhead, and see how easily the hair pops off his forearm when he's done.  I can take an almost sharp broadhead and shave hair (moving wrist to elbow or elbow to wrist) by applying sufficient pressure.  But there is a huge difference between that and barely touching the blade to your skin and having every single hair that was barely contacted by the blade get cut.

[Brian Krebs]

then there is the whole hole thing; the straight cut of a double bevel blade; versus the 'S' cut of the single bevel with a heavy arrow and a correct twist.
 Settle down people; I will shoot one arrow and solve this entire question.

 
 

[Benny Nganabbarru]

Yep, a cut's a cut...if there's a poor blood trail, it's not usually the broadhead's fault (provided it's proper sharp to begin with).

[Sharpster]

Originally posted by flatbowMB:
 

Originally posted by Paul Shirek:
Say what you want but a bigger broadhead means a bigger wound to bleed and a bigger hole to release blood. Regardless of where you hit this is true. I'm sure grizzlies are fine, they are just not capable of majic. Penetrate well, yes. As good a blood trail as a bigger cutting head no.

Not if that bigger broadhead has a mediocre level of sharpness compared to a narrower broadhead that is ultra, scary sharp.  You can make a huge hole and still sever a much smaller surface area of blood vessels (capillaries, arterioles, venules, arteries & veins) than what will be severed by a supersharp blade that creates a much smaller hole - even with the exact same shot placement.  The importance of the hole size takes a distant second to the importance of how many capillaries have been severed.

 What some people may consider to be scary sharp can be worlds apart from what another considers to be scary sharp. [/b]

Exactly right Flatbow.    

Brian, I didn't think this was a single vs. double bevel question.

I do like Grizzlys, and Zwickys, Magnus and others. I'm partial to two blade heads in general because I consistantly get the best groups shooting two blades. Shot placement trumps all else so, shoot whatever head flys the best for you. Then make sure they're insanely sharp and you can follow the red carpet to your animal.

Ron

[laddy]

I had a buck a couple of years back that I shot a shaving sharp 160 Grizzly through the heart into the opposite shoulder.  The buck went 80 yards, I only found two dime size drops. to where the buck was downed.  However, that same year I was convinced I lost a doe that I put two arrows though, one at twenty yards and the second at forty five.  The first arrow went through the deer and stuck in a tree, the second was uphill on the edge of a flat spot on the hill side.  The blood trail dead ended twenty feet past where the last hit was.  The next morning we figured it out when I found my arrow.  I was following my arrow's blood trail. The doe was down under a cedar ten yards away, at a right angle from the arrow flight, with a good blood trail leading right to her. If I would have not waited until dark to trail the deer I would not have gotten my directions turned and would have realized the direction the deer traveled after the hit. A brighter flash light would have helped as well.

[flatbowMB]

Originally posted by Ben Kleinig:
Yep, a cut's a cut....

That is but a part of the whole (hole?) truth.  Take any 2 broadheads of identical dimensions (whether they are both single bevel or both double bevel - as long as they are the same), with the only difference being level of sharpness.  One being truly ultra scary sharp, the other being almost sharp (eg. "I cut my finger on it" or "I can scrape my finger nail with it" pseudo sharp).

  Even if both of these broadheads passed completely through the same spot of any given animal,  the ultrasharp blade will slice a whole lot more capillaries, alveoli and other microstructures than the pseudosharp blade will.
That means much more profuse bleeding will be induced.

Not only that, but the ultrafine slice through these microstructures that is created by a supersharp edge (compared to a rougher cut from a quasisharp or burred edge, or a tearing cut from a serrated edge) will not stimulate coagulants to migrate to the finely cut structures.  A rough cut or tearing cut does stimulate coagulants to the damaged structures and quickly work to lessen the degree of bleeding.

In a nutshell, a sharper blade will cause the animal to bleed alot faster and alot longer than a 'kinda sharp' blade.

Again lets look at the scenario of 2 identically dimensioned broadheads passing completely through the same spot of a given animal.  In this scenario the 2 heads are both equally extremely sharp prior to shooting.  The only difference being that one head uses a superior metal that can hold it's edge alot longer than the other.  Alot of people think that this isn't important, because one pass through on an animal will not dull a broadhead edge enough to make a difference.  This again is a false assumption.  Even with a perfectly placed broadside shot, the odds of at least one edge of the head nicking a rib upon entry (and exit) is far greater than it not touching a rib.  This is enough to drastically dull an edge of most broadheads being marketed today.

While I'm on a rant, there are a couple of other things to get off my chest;

A.  Many, many broadheads which are claimed by their manufacturers to be 'hunting sharp out of the box' are nowhere close to it.

B.  There is no such thing as a sharp edge with a burr.

C.  Serrated edges are a marketing gimmick that is detrimental to the quality of a cut.  The rationale behind their use that I've read is that they will 'grip & tear' larger tough, elastic vessels which would otherwise be pushed out of the way by a smoother edge.  If a smooth edge is truly, truly sharp, it will simlply slice right through a large artery without displacing it in the least.  While there are collagenous fibers in an arterial wall they certainly aren't going to give significant resistance to an extremely sharp blade.  It's not as though there is cartilage or bone in arterial walls.


Mark Residorf, M.Sc. (Anatomical Biomechanics)

[Ham]

In addition to what Flatbow said, I think a pass through will produce a significantly better blood trail.  Besides the obvious two holes to bleed from, an arrow stopped by a large bone is stuck in the wound inhibiting blood loss.

[Dr. Ed Ashby]

What Mark, Michael, Ron and Ray said. Not much to add to that. One of the scariest things in bowhunting I've seen are the many different interpretations of what's "scary sharp"!

Ed
TGMM Family of the Bow

[Hattrick]

Thanks for the input on the heads, i have never shot griz but maybe soon for there penation value, an they will be sharp! i strap all my heads for the final step.

[BigArcher]

I shot a 4 pt elk last fall with a 190 gr grizzly on a wood shaft.  Total of about 750 grains for the arrow.
I didn't notice the  blood trail as the elk fell about 35 yards away.
I did notice quite a bit of blood shot meat on the oppisite shoulder.  Must of hit a big bone really hard.

BigArcher

[RC]

Kinda like Ray said. Although I`ve never used grizzlies I am a big fan of two blade heads. I usually blood trail about 1/4 of the critters I shoot or less. After a good double lung shot I see or hear them fall.I shoot Magnus I`s most of the time but they are not 1 1/2 .I file them till they are around 1 3/16 but long.They have a slight concave shape and are deadly. Kinda like a narrower Interceptor.I`m sure the Grizzly head will bleed a plenty if hit low and in the lungs.Anywhere other than that the blood could be less with any head.RC

[Dr. Ed Ashby]

David, any more details about the shot and hit on your elk that you can share?

I'm fairly certain your surmise is correct. About the only time you'll see 'blood shot' meat with a broadhead tipped arrow is where bone has been heavily impacted. It's not 'blood shot' in the sense of the hydrostatic shock one sees with high-velocity impacts, but is simply localized bruising of soft tissues. However, you can rest assured that your arrow was still carrying a substantial level of force when it reached that bone!

"The greatest aid to animal recovery is a SHORT blood trail"

Ed
TGMM Family of the Bow