Author Topic: New Woodsman Bhs (Read 10863 times)

IronCreekArcher · « **Reply #60 on:** May 29, 2009, 11:10:00 PM »

J Dog I am glad I am not the only one on this site who has the hissing problem and can't get rid of it. I second the deletion of the vents for added weight and Guru I am interested to see the pics. Why the deviation from the 3:1 ratio...was that not all the hype about the original design? To change that makes me wonder... :confused:

Al Kidner · « **Reply #61 on:** May 30, 2009, 02:37:00 AM »

See what happens when you dont drop into Tradgang often enough.... someone goes and builds a fine looking Broad head!

Looking forward to trying these out. Every Deer I've shot with a WW has ben down and out in sight.

ak.

flyfish1 · « **Reply #62 on:** May 30, 2009, 06:55:00 AM »

Ironcreek,
The last ones I bought were the precision grind and the dimensions on them were not close to the originals I have. They shortened them and added width also and still advertise the 3-1 ratio. Still a good head but getting close to the small to mid size snuffers I have had great results with. Just my observation.

Rob DiStefano · « **Reply #63 on:** May 30, 2009, 07:08:00 AM »

i gotta agree with guru - in comparing the standard and new elite woodsmans, the elite 1pc digitally mics at 2.521" long and .835" wide (blade-to-blade width), while the standard is 2.714" long and .918" in width.

the elite is just beautifully built, but i sure wish they didn't make it smaller (i'm guessing part of the smaller size is to hit the 125 grain weight?).

James Wrenn · « **Reply #64 on:** May 30, 2009, 07:42:00 AM »

Well I will agree I hate to see any broadhead go smaller instead of bigger.I guess the size and 3 head packaging is geared to getting some of the wheelbow market.Good move for business but always results in smaller broadheads for those of us that like bigger. :D

I still remember my disapointment when Simmons planned on making a stainless screw-in shark.I was so excited that I was going to have my perfect broadhead.They let me down so bad when they shrunk it down to a tiny little thing like everything else on the market. :(

Charlie Lamb · « **Reply #65 on:** May 30, 2009, 07:51:00 AM »

I'll hop on this one.

If I had my druthers, I'd druther they'd have taken the original design, increased the cutting diameter to 1 1/8" (or even 1 1/4") and made the head proportionally longer.

That would be a bad mamma jamma.

Charlie Lamb · « **Reply #66 on:** May 30, 2009, 07:53:00 AM »

I should add that so many archers and manufacturers are stuck on the antiquated idea of 125 grain broadheads.

Time to move on. The general shooting public is no longer afraid of heavier broadheads.

James Wrenn · « **Reply #67 on:** May 30, 2009, 08:03:00 AM »

Well since many of us shoot carbon or aluminum and use glue on heads we are always shooting more than 125gns.On an aluminum adapter our 125s come out close to 175-180gns.It would make sense to make screw-ins to match that weight and the weight of the 125 on a steel adapter like many shoot.You should be able to make the head a little larger and meet those weights without problems.

Rob DiStefano · « **Reply #68 on:** May 30, 2009, 08:10:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charlie Lamb:
I'll hop on this one.

If I had my druthers, I'd druther they'd have taken the original design, increased the cutting diameter to 1 1/8" (or even 1 1/4") and made the head proportionally longer.

That would be a bad mamma jamma.

yeah man, now yer talkin', right on!!!

i'll put a pre-order in for 2 dozen ...

Chris Surtees · « **Reply #69 on:** May 30, 2009, 08:59:00 AM »

Personally I am looking forward to trying them out even though they are a little smaller than the originals. Still think they are going to be deadly on deer and hogs. But I would not hesitate to buy some larger ones if they were made in the future. Great thing about shooting Trad is there is something out there for everyone.

Terry Green · « **Reply #70 on:** May 30, 2009, 09:00:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Charlie Lamb:
I should add that so many archers and manufacturers are stuck on the antiquated idea of 125 grain broadheads.

Time to move on. The general shooting public is no longer afraid of heavier broadheads.

They aint only gonna make one weight.....

Might not just make one size....

I hope so, as I'm a big chop guy. I love the WWs for hogs as they are for sure....would like to see a bigger WW like what Charlie said...with THIS type construction. It is one well made head for sure.

Curtiss Cardinal · « **Reply #71 on:** May 30, 2009, 09:10:00 AM »

Fine looking head but I gotta float my stick along with Mr. Lamb about a bigger heavier head instead of miniturization. I've been dowhunting for 36 years and have never used a 125 grain broadhead. Even if it came in that weight and I glued it onto a wooden shaft I added weight, usually with split shot or worm weights from my fishing tackle. All the research on front loading can't and shouldn't be ignored.

Terry Green · « **Reply #72 on:** May 30, 2009, 09:53:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by IronCreekArcher:
I wonder if they still hiss even with the "when mounted properly" clause...I highly doubt they have solved this dilema yet. Other than that they look like a great head.

That issue was addressed.

J-dog · « **Reply #73 on:** May 30, 2009, 09:54:00 AM »

Well I totally agree with Mr. Lamb - I will definantly be ordering a couple packs of these for this deer season. They look awesome though not held one in hand yet. 125 grain plus 100 grain steel adapter will get me kickin somewhere in the 225 range.
Will keep fingers crossed for more variety in the WW in the future.

J

J-dog · « **Reply #74 on:** May 30, 2009, 09:55:00 AM »

Oh yeah and the fact they made the ferrul of the BHd custom for their adapters is pretty cool too. Good job!

J

Terry Green · « **Reply #75 on:** May 30, 2009, 09:57:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Night Wing:

Quote
Originally posted by IronCreekArcher:
I wonder if they still hiss even with the "when mounted properly" clause...I highly doubt they have solved this dilema yet. Other than that they look like a great head.
My 150 grain WW's have never hissed in flight. [/b]

Mine either.

Guru · « **Reply #76 on:** May 30, 2009, 10:17:00 AM »

Pix are loading....

I don't want you to think that I don't like the new heads....they look great, and should penetrate awesome! Just that I surprised that they were smaller.....but I always used the WW for just that purpose. If I felt I needed shoot something that needed a little better penetration that my big Snuffers....I never hesitate to use a WW....

Ya'll know I like my 3blades!

As far as keeping the 3:1 ratio, I think they kept it the same by making them a little narrower as well as a little shorter.....

The tip still needs to be nipped a little more in my opinion.....it's barely what I would call a "chiseled".....at least this one that I have ....

Terry Green · « **Reply #77 on:** May 30, 2009, 10:23:00 AM »

Sorry for the multiple posts...just catching up on this thread.

I sure don't have a problem with vents...but would like to see a version larger than the original.....175 grain screw in....150 grain glue on same dimensions....bout the length of a 160 grain snuffer with the width of a 125 snuffer or slightly less....

Give me a few...got some pics comming....

Terry Green · « **Reply #78 on:** May 30, 2009, 10:25:00 AM »

Curt...they did push one through a quarter though with no tip damage....ok...back to the pics...

Terry Green · « **Reply #79 on:** May 30, 2009, 10:32:00 AM »

Here's the hybrid I was talking about...length of a 160 - width of a 125.

160 Snuffer.......Hybrid Snuffer........125 Snuffer

125 Snuffer......Wensel Original......Wensel Elite


LEFT HAND BOWS CLASSIFIEDS	TRAD GANG CLASSIFIEDS ACCESS	RIGHT HAND BOWS CLASSIFIEDS

News:

Author Topic: New Woodsman Bhs (Read 10863 times)

Users currently browsing this topic: