I Have a Question......a few to follow(more ?? pgs. 4,6,7)and final question pg. 9

[Doc Nock]

Originally posted by Guru:


But how can you guys think that a big BH that will leave more sign and do more damage, won't help in recovery??

It would seem there are as many opinions as there are differing personal experiences.  I'm just a wee bit uncomfortable "assuming" that a bigger MULTI- blade broadhead, in the wrong place, will result in more damage that leads to a better blood trail and recovery.

Only deer I ever "gut" shot was a deflected arrow that was a complete pass through...with a 4-blade head!

That deer took 3 jumps...staggered, lay down..in thick serviceberry bushes I couldn't shoot through. My set up was 150 yard from the DE State Line and it was THICK along the intervening creek.

I had no choice but to wait...it took that deer 2.5 HOURS to die...

I almost gave up hunting listening to that animal heave and die slowly!

Point One: That 4 blade went through the liver! Not the guts- Undisturbed, a liver shot is supposed to be deadly...2.5 hrs while you watch and listen leaves an indelable impression! :(

Point Two: There was not ONE drop of blood where the deer lay for 2.5 hrs!

Point Three: There seems to be this "inference" that "big multi-blades...aiding in recovery of "too far back" shots. That scares me to let that sit with out some challenge...respectfully posed I hope.

I'm having problems with that if that is a conclusion drawn by others. Why? Just like the rest of us...my "sample experience" doesn't confirm that being a reasonalbe assumption.

It's been said over and over through 10 pages that there are a multitude of variables that would come into play on recovery of a "too far back" (gut shot) deer...sharpeness, pass through, undistrubed deer...etc. The mere presence or absence of an additon one or 2 blades, through the "too far back" just makes the hairs on my neck stand up...why? Because there are several people here expressing they're starting out and reading with interest. I'm afraid that a inexperienced person might think that a big 3 blade means they will have better results... and purely from my personal experience, that doesn't seem to be a reasonalbe "assumption" or conclusion.

The seasoned vets posting here, know better'n anyone that they'd never take a poor shot intentially. Nor do they rely on a particular style of broadhead (other'n deadly sharp) to make up for a poor placement.

Guru, respectfully, this emphasis quoted from you for questioning  7/8" BH, intrigues me. Is that leveled at the "altered" Griz 190 of Doc Ashby's description, if memory serves? I kinda wondered about it being less width than I was used to myself... but where the 7/8"--was that it?

There was so much "meat" in his article...about the soft tissue devastation... with the single-bevel blade and how it rotates...that to me...with the number of variables controlled, and multiple tests run... I decided to "believe" much of what was written.  

I still shoot double bevel 2 blade...after disappointing results with larger 3 blades...and 4 blades. Go figure?  

That doesn't mean that my opinon or experiences are better than others, but the "big broadhead, big hole = "lots of blood and better recovery..."if it's a gut shot--- I don't see it.  It makes me nervous thinking that some of our less experienced readers might draw that conclusion.. but that's just me being an old fuddiduddy!    I'm seeing a lot of testimony that folks have found differently, like me...and have excellent results with 2 blade, single and double bevel...or did I dream it?

I guess that I'm like so many of us...i.e., where did my 'opinion" come from? Well, my 4 blade experience through the liver, a deadly shot..which the animal dropped in 3 steps...but took 2.5 hrs to die...and had I tried to get out of the tree...and it run into that thick briar crap...crossed into DE... I'd never have recovered it... I can say that with confidence when it lay in one spot for 2.5 HOURS and not one drop of blood was found...till I opened it up and found a flood come out...and it was a total pass through.

I have shot a couple of deer with a 3 blade WW...I got it as sharp as I could... I'm sure others could have done better. I shot one through boiler room with that 3 Blade that I watched fall within 100 yards..ran through standing corn...couldn't find any blood most of the way..just here and there...

I'm not the best tracker...but was alarmed at the light amount of blood on the ground with a pass through!      :eek:  

It would appear that all of us base our opinions on our personal experiences... which seems right to do. But I try to remain open to other data sources. I've not switched to single bevel... but I might!

I have posted elsewhere that I realized my blades, while very sharp going in had waaay too thin a bevel, didn't hold up...and didn't come out as sharp because of it leaving less positive blood trails. I still don't know why 3 deer shot with 3 blades had lousy blood trails.

And I think I'm decent on tracking...but not an expert... so I opt for what seems to work best. Just like all the respondents here.

Thanks for listening (reading). Now help an old guy down off a soap box before I fall and break a hip!  

[RC]

Great thread Guru.This is where I "look" on a deer.Actually a tad lower.If he don`t squat he`s had a bad day ,if he does its just as bad.RC

 

[Guru]

Ok, I guess the 7/8" thing stuck in my head from when Terry Spoke about getting shot with one or a 160 snuffer, but I've read the good Doc A. talk about 7/8"......

I know almost every head on the market is 1' or bigger.....


Doc, with all due respect...your 4 blader did what it was supposed to do....the animal took 3 steps and laid down..the deer wasn't walking or running,blood flow is bound to be minimal..What would have happened with a 2bl.? We'll never know....

[Doc Nock]

Thanks, Guru, for your very civil response. I appreciate your kind questions.

And I think your questions and words summate my concern, if I didn't express myself well, I apologize.

The 4 blade did it's job. So did the 3. And all the ones shot with 2. Point was that in that case...if that arrow had HIT a rib, instead of slipping between the 10th-11th..and out behind the 4th... and starteled that deer into flight... with NO blood I could have had a devil's own time.

The end result had little to do with the blade count, more about fortune, Grace, luck, or just coincidence. I missed the rib...deer was totally relaxed, blade was good'n sharp...etc, etc.

My goal was to simply ask us not to assume that a big, multi-blade head in the "far back (guts) was going to (quoting your one post)"leave more sign and do more damage."

Obviously, many of the posters with an allegance to multi-blads, have had such good experiences. Mine and other posters experiences with mult-blades have varied.  

I would never challenge the efficacy of a mult-blade head! I did challenge any conclusion that a multi-blade head, entering "too far back" being hearlded as an advantage to a gut shot.

Confidence is a great asset in trad archery. I would never profess a single bevel is superior, or a 2 blade double. There are too many variable.

Likewise, I would not be comfortable suggesting that a gut shot with a multi-blade is going to provide better sign, more blood, or a better recovery rate.

Just hasn't happened to me and it could be any one of my variables...didn't sharpen 3 or 4 as well as 2, etc. ad naseum.

Thanks for a great thread with a lot of very interesting insights, thoughts and shared experiences.

Peace, bro...

[Shawn Leonard]

I have to agree with Jason, because it works. I have only shot about 20 deer with Trad equipment but I have shot well over 50 with a compound. I always shot a head with a 1" cutting diameter, it worked wonders for me. i shoulder shot most of those deer and that little head with a heavy arrow penetrated very well. I than turned to Traditional and I shot 2 blade zwickeys. I shot around 65#s and same thing, they penetrated very well even when I hit the deer forward i got quick kills. Now move forward a couple shoulder surguries and shooting 50-54#s. I now shoot a Snuffer 3 blade and try and stay off the shoulder. I believe that the large cutting diameter helps when I hit them to far back,I get a bigger hole, more tissue cut equals more damage and in return a better chance of recovery. I still do Ok if  hit them a bit forward as well but may not have an exit hole but usually still get both lungs. Last but not least I would like to say when you do this long enough and shoot enough deer you just get a feeling for yourself what works and no one can change my mind on what I know for myself has worked for over 25 years now. Shawn

[L82HUNT]

Originally posted by Shawn Leonard:
Last but not least I would like to say when you do this long enough and shoot enough deer you just get a feeling for yourself what works and no one can change my mind on what I know for myself has worked for over 25 years now. Shawn

Well said sir.  Once you, are I, or anyone find that setup that they love its pretty hard to change our mind.

[joe skipp]

King and Killy...we laid a skeletal out after skinning and removing all the meat. Compared it to our Instructional Skeletal we show the students....Once you see this, you VISUALIZE that area on the animal before making your shot. I know your sense of humor Killy...LOL...the other fellow has been in the sun too long...Molson...thanks for reading and understanding....I'm being polite here....I could get nasty....

Personal preference with success over the years. Since 1979, I've use single blade Zwickey Eskimos and this year added the No Mercy. Why change when I've taken numerous animals with my setup. I love the Snuffers...especially on black bear and Turkeys. When I bowhunted with Roger Rothaar back in '87 and he gave me six 160 gr Snuffers to try out, I was impressed with the size and hole it left.

I decide to use them on Turkeys and Bear. Knockdown power on turkeys and large holes on bear due to the thick fur...which eats up blood.
I took 4 deer with the Snuffers but my Zwickeys out penetrated them. Large holes produce better blood trails...but any deer hit in the lungs...2 blade or 3 blade heads...won't go far.

[Bonebuster]

Two edge heads impart less IMPACT trauma to the animal.

When I changed from a compound to a recurve, I switched to a two blade because I had read they give the best penetration. I quickly learned that deer react to being hit MUCH less than they did when I was shooting a heavy compound and a Thunderhead 160.(big 3-blade).

I shoot a heavy bow, and heavy arrows. My arrows don`t even slow down when they pass through ribs and lungs. Most times, the deer reacts by taking a few jumps, and stopping to try and figure out what happened. (I am talking about a relaxed deer)

In addition, from my experience, as hard as I try, I cannot get a re-sharpenable 3-blade head nearly as sharp as I can a two edge. I have tried and tried, but I NEVER get an acceptable edge...in my opinion.
Because of this I have never used one for hunting. Maybe, the edge I get is plenty sharp for hunting and I just don`t know it, BUT it does not change the fact that I can get a two edge noticeably sharper.

Blood trails from GOOD hits have never been a problem with my favored two edge heads. There have been my share of poor hits I`ve made through the years, that did not produce good blood to follow, but I learned using my Basset Hound, that mortally wounded deer do not go far before they stop to watch their backtrail. When they are sure they are not being followed, they bed soon after. Therefore, I learned to QUIETLY back out, without going even thirty yards the direction the deer went.

Common sense tells me that an extra blade can do more damage, but I did use three blades when I used Thunderheads, and I clearly saw the difference in the reaction between two edge and three.

Believe it or not, I feel I am more accurate with a two edge, than a three blade, any day. Even a big, fat, unvented, one like a Magnus-1 or a Delta. Maybe this is a mental "confidence' thing.

[novahunterpa]

I belive what Bh style most use is a personal preferance based on the results that hunter has witnessed.  If a hunter has had good results with one and a few bad results with another style head he prob stay with they BH he saw good results with.  That does'nt mean his Bh is better or the other is worse, as it prob is only a small sample of game he has taken and so many variables come into play.
  I have taken my fair share of game with 2blade and multi blade heads, but I have not taken enough game, In different conditions to make any absoult conclusions.   In another forum I wasreading a thread where they ask to show pic's and tell stories about "blood trails"   Most of the post's are from coumpond guy's shooting "new style heads" but a few are from trad shooters.   I notice in this thread that a deer shoot with brand x in one post seemd to leave a massive blood trail, then in a few post's later the same BH would leave almost no blood.
  I belive many factors go into the amount of blood seen not just broadhead, even on hit's in a simailar spot,  angel of hit can make a differance as to weather blood is on the ground.  Also it often depends on what "organs or arteries" or lack there of was hit.   Ive seen some game that was well hit but bled mostly on the inside and left little blood to track.  Ive seen some hit's that eave lot's of blood.  On one deer I shoot it left a ton of blood at the spot i shot it and for maybe 20 yards, then almost no blood for another 60 yards where he lay dead.  could be he bled out almost all his blood and his blood pressure helped to push it out early on leaving good blood trail,  as his blood pressure fell he mostly bled inside leving little blood to track.  
  all shot's are different even when they seem the same and results will vary no matter what BH is used. Sure some Bh are most likely better then other's,  But I dont have the time or money to test them all ill leave that to others like DR.AHSBY ,

[Guru]

Originally posted by Bonebuster:

Common sense tells me that an extra blade can do more damage

For me that pretty much sums it up guys......
 


This has been a great discussion of thoughts and experiences....thanx    

Now I gotta go run some big/multi bl. bh's through some TX critters    

[Ray Hammond]

My grizzly 190 is 1 3/16 inch wide and creates a spiral wound channel in soft tissue.....in my opinion once you see what a rotating broadhead does inside of a deer or hog you will have the answer to the questions, as I see them.

[Guru]

Oh I have the answers Ray, and I really don't need to look through anyone's eyes but my own....

Been there Ray...not impressed bud....

Exactly how much "spiraling" do you think an arrow can possibly do going through a foot wide deer?

Have you ever seen first hand what a 160 Snuffer "wound channel" looks like through a deer?      

 Lets all remember what who named and created the Snuffer(just as an example)...and why he did...Roger Rothaar was on to something back then and nothing has changed!

Big BH's do more damage, and the way 'Bonebuster' said it, "common sense will tell ya that".....

[Minuteman]

RC, that is right where I like to hit 'em.

[Ray Hammond]

Been there? You mean you have used single bevel two blades?

I've been directly involved in over one thousand whitetail kills, and half that many hogs. There's been a LOT of lousy blood trails in that time, and a great many of them were multi-bladed heads, including a few Snuffers bent up by rib hits.

The grizzly heads do enough spiraling (one turn in 17 inches I believe) that they often "whip" the soft tissue contents into something similar to a frozen margarita-like consistency.

There's lots of ways to skin cats- you have yours, I've got mine. No need to poo-poo something that works exceedingly well for lots of other people because "you ain't impressed".

We're all after the same thing...putting them on the ground..and I know that's your motivation here.

However, if you already HAVE the answers, then you aren't asking questions, you are lecturing, right?

[SteveB]

However, if you already HAVE the answers, then you aren't asking questions, you are lecturing, right?
 

I see Curt's method here as a unique way to present a strong case that maybe "bonebusting" ability is not the the primary concern deer hunters should have when choosing a broadhead.

Steve

[DRR324]

Ray,  I have much less experience than you have, only 60 or so whitetail kills with wheeled gear and only a handful with trad gear.  So I am certainly not questioning experience here, I do question how one turn in 17 inches can "whip" soft tissue, and how can it be any different than my razorcap spinning in flight- yes I know it stops some spinning while inside the cavity of a whitetail.  But through post mortem examination- it spins enough to create offset entrance holes and exit hole.  Tough to tell how much of a revolution- same with a two blade I assume.  Anyway- I don't feel any soft tissue can be "blenderized" by any broadhead- unless it was spinning at a far faster rate than 1 in 17".  Most soft tissue found left in the cavity is clotted lumps of blood.  
I certainly am open to explanation and correction, again just questioning the reasoning, not your opinion/expertise... thanks Dave

[Sharpster]

originally posted by Bonebuster: Two edge heads impart less IMPACT trauma to the animal.

When I changed from a compound to a recurve, I switched to a two blade because I had read they give the best penetration. I quickly learned that deer react to being hit MUCH less than they did when I was shooting a heavy compound and a Thunderhead 160.(big 3-blade).

 Common sense tells me that an extra blade can do more damage, but I did use three blades when I used Thunderheads, and I clearly saw the difference in the reaction between two edge and three.

Believe it or not, I feel I am more accurate with a two edge, than a three blade, any day. Even a big, fat, unvented, one like a Magnus-1 or a Delta. Maybe this is a mental "confidence' thing.

Originally posted by Doc Nock: I have shot a couple of deer with a 3 blade WW...I got it as sharp as I could... I'm sure others could have done better. I shot one through boiler room with that 3 Blade that I watched fall within 100 yards..ran through standing corn...couldn't find any blood most of the way..just here and there... I'm not the best tracker...but was alarmed at the light amount of blood on the ground with a pass through!

Originally posted by Guru:
 

Originally posted by Bonebuster:

Common sense tells me that an extra blade can do more damage

For me that pretty much sums it up guys......[/b]

Guru, This has been a great thread and no disrespect intended but lets not confuse "can do more damage" (and in theory aid in recovery) with "always will". There are many far more critical factors that influence bloodtrails and game recovery than how many blades a broadhead has.

Ron

[Guru]

Oh no Ray, no lecturing at all bud..been a good disscussion.."1000 Whitetail kills"      

DRR324,    

Ron, So you're saying a big bh doesn't do more damage than a small one?

[Ray Hammond]

DRR,
how much spinning does it take to whip a set of lungs? They are thinner than the thinnest balloon and filled with blood. Get real.

Curt, yes 1000. It doesn't take 55 bowhunters in metro Atlanta very long to kill 1000 whitetails what with 12 tags a year and primo golf course and river bottom lands along the backs of subdivisions to get that done. I started, and ran for 9 years an urban deer reduction program.

This bears little difference to any other thread we've had on broadheads....everyone thinks what they use is the "right" one..and no amount of talking is going to change anyone's mind on the subject.

It's interesting to me that many folks who don't use grizzlies sure know what the broadhead is INCAPABLE of doing!

Shooting something "back" with a three, five, or seven blade head isn't going to yield anything different than a two blade head- its still going to be a dead deer, without a blood trail to follow in most cases.

[Sharpster]

No Curt,

All things being equal (which is a rare case), the bigger head with more blades should in theory do more damage than the smaller one. Trouble is there are just too many variables to say thats the way it is everytime, end of story.

Numerous posts indicating that bigger muti-blade heads did not significantly influence the bloodtrails or recovery have been posted. We all use what we're most confident in and of course that will vary from person to person but, I think suggesting that any specific type of broadhead will improve the chances of recovering an animal is misleading to some extent. It's very much like asking the question "Which leaves better blood trails: 2 blades, 3 blades or 4 blades"? There are just too many variables in bowhunting for one set in stone answer to that question.

If I could get the same level of accuracy, sharpness, penetration, and the same minimal reaction to the shot from the animal with every broadhead type, then I'd be shooting the biggest head with the most blades I could get my hands on. Till then I'll use the one that gets me the best combination of all the above.

Thanks for the fun, civil, and thought provoking thread.  

Ron