Single Bevel Hype and The Missing Blood trails

[Mike Bolin]

Good respectful discussion!

[Kevin Dill]

I'm consistently surprised that people occasionally don't understand one principle of lung wounds: You can inflict a fully penetrating wound to the lungs without severing a major blood vessel. There will still be bleeding internally but nothing like if a larger pulmonary vessel or branch is cut. Absent a cut vessel pouring blood into the wound channel (and outside the body) there can be very little blood. There have been many documented instances of shots penetrating both lungs and still not yielding a kill....and definitely not a fast kill. It can come down to something as innocent as which way a blade happens to line up as it passes near a vessel.

I used to advocate for big devastating heads and wounds (theoretically) but have long since tempered that with the primary desire to achieve an exit wound. Penetration wins every time when I select a broadhead and shaft. The S-cut produced by a single bevel is a documented fact, but I personally don't shoot them for an S-cut. I shoot them because they may have an advantage against bone, and because I've noted them to penetrate extremely well. It only helps that they (mine) are built heavy, durable and I can get them blindingly sharp with very little effort.

[mec lineman]

Excellent point Kevin

[IndioArcher]

Mike Bolin, I agree with you. Good, informative discussion, and above all, respectful. One of the things I like most about this forum!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[goingoldskool]

I've not had a lot of kills with 2 blades, but the ones I have definitely put blood on the ground.... I use Simmons Tigershark and Treesharks. I've noticed that I have had the "S" cut with double bevels and have noted that there was blood from  entrance, exit, as well as blood coughed up from nose and mouth.

No right answer here.... just what oaks are comfortable with.

Good luck, shoot straight and God bless,

Rodd

[Trumpkin the Dwarf]

Trumpkin, How would you propose to practice outside of hunting and shooting animals?  Have a buddy drip red paint through the woods?

In theory we shouldn't need blood to practice tracking. I figure going into the woods, cutting a track, and following it ought to work. I'll try to figure out the why, as much as the where.

[Ray Lyon]

I’ve used Kustom King Trailmaker three blades, Zwickey Delta 2blade and Grizzly two blade heads for the majority of my 75 plus whitetail kills. Blood trails have varied with all three heads. The quickest deer to go down other than spine shot was with a Grizzly head-literally 15 yards. Every deer I hit well was found just out of sight, mostly by walking to the last landmark I saw the deer pass and it was found shortly after.  I agree with the above statement about a bottom exit wound being the key no matter what head.  If you’re taking out both lungs you should find your deer just out of sight or in compass line of where you last heard it in thick cover.  Don’t over think this.  Accuracy and sharpness (both equally important) trump all else.

[ozy clint]

I used to advocate for big devastating heads and wounds (theoretically) but have long since tempered that with the primary desire to achieve an exit wound. Penetration wins every time when I select a broadhead and shaft. The S-cut produced by a single bevel is a documented fact, but I personally don't shoot them for an S-cut. I shoot them because they may have an advantage against bone, and because I've noted them to penetrate extremely well. It only helps that they (mine) are built heavy, durable and I can get them blindingly sharp with very little effort.

this brings into focus a different perspective on BH choice. i like kevin, aim to achieve 2 holes with the widest head possible. width of cut is certainly one factor to consider but so is length of cut and length of cut is directly related to penetration. 2 holes with the widest cut possible is my goal, the choice of BH to achieve this depends on a great amount of variables, not least being the tackle used and the target animal. i consider all these and chose the appropriate BH. lately my quiver carries up to 3 types and styles of BH. this gives me greater choice for the right tool for the job that presents itself.

[YosemiteSam]

A few thoughts:

I think some people misunderstand how things work in the real world.  Even if single bevels created better blood trails on average, an individual hunter may yet kill a dozen animals in a row with hardly any blood trail at all.  The mechanical advantage, S-wounds, etc. are all based on the scientific laws of Newtonian physics.  But outside the lab, those same laws are more like guidelines.  Small sample sizes often skew the results we see.

A well-respected elk hunter and author I enjoy reading is a single bevel enthusiast -- even for whitetails.  He shoots low 50# bows, 750+ grain arrows and wants as much penetration as possible.  I recall one story of hitting a whitetail in the spine (tree stand) and still having enough penetration to hit the vitals.

I haven't killed any deer with my bow yet.  But for now, I use Zwickey double bevels.  They're easier for me to sharpen, seem to work for all sorts of animals and have been around a long time.  Anything that can survive that much real-world testing and still have a ready market of buyers is reason enough to keep it at the top of the list.  For the one turkey I've gotten with the bow, it was about as clean a kill as it gets.  I may consider something like a grizzly in double bevel if I ever chase hogs or elk with my bow.  But I may just grab an eskimo or no mercy & call it good.

[amicus]

I totally agree with Kevin Dills statement.

This is why I use s/b grizzlies.

http://www.tradgang.com/tgsmf/index.php?topic=94824.0

[pavan]

When I started deer hunting the local Hi-precision plant was still operating.  Everyone except me was using them, I didn't have the right connections to get free heads.  The worst broadhead ever made.  some were stamped way crooked, some were uneven at the laminate, some were missing welding, one day word got around that they needed to be sharper than what guys were getting them.  Most used those little grey stones.  One cheep bugger just used a file on his and only sharpdnedone side of the blade because the other side, needed someone left handed to sharpen it.  He could have sharpened both sides at once like the guys with the bigger stones tried to do, but then he would need a bigger file.   He should me how they were welded and told me he was just trying to stay on just side to miss the joint.  Everyone else said that would make the head twist off the arrow.  The problem was his deer were easy to find, and he shot more deer than he was supposed to, while the other guys lost deer consistently.  I had to buy my own, I got the cheap ones with plastic ferrules and later the 135 Deadheads.  A man down the street that sharpened saws and knives for a living kept mine sharp for free.  My deer bled very well.

[Tajue17]

I shoot singles and doubles but I base my broadhead choice on flight and which ones I can get sharp as heck ---yeah forget those tuskers!!!!   

anyway if I'm really after a huge blood trail and short track I reach for the undisputed king of the short blood trails and that's the big ole 160 snuffer,,, okay maybe Big Jims 1 1/2 if he has any but the snuff as been around a lot longer and killed a lot more, easy to sharpen and always flys true huge blood trails are rewarded to all who can actually find any these days  

SO any broadhead for me that actually hits "the spot" is the best broadhead hands down until the next random head hits the spot then that one is the Best and so on,,,,, NOW if any of my broadheads ever miss or I lose an animal then that broadhead gets shunned until the day I die and I'll just tell people not to buy it 

[Walt Francis]

Great discussion.

My experiences parallel close to Kevin’s, though I put arrow flight right up there with the broadhead for penetration.  For me, a straight flying arrow comes first, then choose the broadhead.  With so many well made, quality broadheads out there, use the one you can sharpen and hits where you want to.  For the last 10 or 12 years the Eclipse 145 grain has been that broadhead for me.  Mostly because you can use the bleeder blades when hunting anything smaller then an elk, then take them out when hunting elk or anything larger, without having to mess too much with your arrows.

Before the Eclipse I didn’t have a favorite broadhead but killed critters with the Grizzly 190 (second favorite), Magnus II, Woodsman, Snuffer, and Doug Campbell Damascus trade points.  Unlike many, I am not a fan of Zwickey’s.  I had several fail (welds blew out when they hit wood/trees) and just can’t make myself trust them.

With Alaskan Moose, Montana Elk, and Montana Bison (yes I hit the lottery an got one the 40 tags) scheduled for this fall the bleeder blades might not make it into the quiver this year.

[Zwickey-Fever]

I'm consistently surprised that people occasionally don't understand one principle of lung wounds: You can inflict a fully penetrating wound to the lungs without severing a major blood vessel. There will still be bleeding internally but nothing like if a larger pulmonary vessel or branch is cut.

I fully understand "one principle of lung wounds" Mr. Dill. For fourteen years out of my life I was a 68-Whiskey in the United States Army and seen, as well as received more than my far share lung wounds. I'm consistently surprised that there's always someone that has tunnel vision and thinks in the nature of which this post was written.
 As for me, what I look for in a broadhead is putting blood on the ground which the single beveled broadhead did not. It also lacked the "S" shaped wound channel in which I heard so much about. That's a fact in the case of the doe that I shot. 
 Not everyone will have the same experience with any given broadheads. That's a fact as well.
Take care TG

[Kevin Dill]

I'm consistently surprised that people occasionally don't understand one principle of lung wounds: You can inflict a fully penetrating wound to the lungs without severing a major blood vessel. There will still be bleeding internally but nothing like if a larger pulmonary vessel or branch is cut.

I fully understand "one principle of lung wounds" Mr. Dill. For fourteen years out of my life I was a 68-Whiskey in the United States Army and seen, as well as received more than my far share lung wounds. I'm consistently surprised that there's always someone that has tunnel vision and thinks in the nature of which this post was written.
 As for me, what I look for in a broadhead is putting blood on the ground which the single beveled broadhead did not. It also lacked the "S" shaped wound channel in which I heard so much about. That's a fact in the case of the doe that I shot. 
 Not everyone will have the same experience with any given broadheads. That's a fact as well.
Take care TG

Well....geez!  I sense some irritation in your post. You should know my post was in NO way directed at you personally, nor was it intended to impugn what you wrote. I put the lung issue out there because there's a wide assumption that penetrating lung wounds mean big blood and certain death which isn't always the case. My goal is to add meaningful knowledge and respectful dialogue to this topic...and certainly part of doing that is not accusing others of being "someone that has tunnel vision and thinks in the nature of which this post was written". Actually, I have an open mind toward learning, and I don't go negative toward others. I've enjoyed the experiences shared in this thread...including yours...and haven't felt any irritation toward anyone's post.

And by the way Zwickey...thank you sincerely for your service to our nation.

[Trumpkin the Dwarf]

For fourteen years out of my life I was a 68-Whiskey in the United States Army and seen, as well as received more than my far share lung wounds.

Thank you for your service! And thank you for sharing your experiences here. I don't think that Kevin was aiming any comments at you in particular.

In fact, if I exclude my own original post, I haven't seen anyone here take a particularly obnoxious or belligerent stance on the topic. It has been a refreshing discussion, so thank you everyone!

there's a wide assumption that penetrating lung wounds mean big blood and certain death which isn't always the case.

Kevin, this little nugget was something I did not know, and I really appreciated learning about! I almost think that should go into a thread on shot placement/tracking tips, or something like that... there's that word again, tracking.

[RedShaft]

I think some are missing a key point with single bevel heads. That is they were designed for heavy hide and heavy boned animals. Like Dangerous game. To increase penetration on those animals to get into the vitals.

Now I think it can be beneficial to those shooting very low poundage and trying to purse larger North America game. So they can get away with the lower poundage.

 

[JohnV]

I have no idea why some disparage single bevel heads by insisting that they are not hunting cape buffalo, elephant, etc.  Have you never hit a whitetail or hog and failed to get adequate penetration?  While I am not hunting a rino, If my shot is a bit off and I hit the scapula I want a broadhead/arrow combination that maximizes the ability to bust through the bone and get to the vitals.

[RedShaft]

The point was with blood trails. Poor to non existent.
 That’s is why. The heads are narrow to increase that penetration on the large game the Ed was hunting. Not so much for external blood loss. But to get that head in to cut the vitals.
They have very good trackers in those areas of the world.

[JohnV]

Huh.  I never realized the blood trails that I typically get using single bevel heads was that poor!  Of course, if you are hitting animals in the guts and intestines you are not going to get a good blood trail regardless of what you are using.