HH's opinion of heavy broadheads?

[Lee Robinson .]

In Hunting the Hardway, HH states a broadhead should not weight more than 145 grains. These were his words, but given he used a broadhead much heavier (on a very very heavy arrow) when he shot elephants, he obviously was referring to tyipcal weight arrows.

I am curious what he would have thought of all these heavy heads people are using today.

[Jeff Strubberg]

Howard fought getting stiff enough shafts for his heavy bows.  I doubt you could have sold him a heavy broadhead.

That's nothing against heavy heads, just saying that I doubt Howard could have gotten them to work for him.

[Stumpkiller]

He didn't need them.  He shot wood shafts.      

Look back at the writings of Pope, Young, Case, Whiffen, Nagler . . .

125 grains was a heavy broadhead.

[Molson]

The heavyweight heads, for the most part, became popular with the carbon shaft where they work quite well.  Howard might have had a different opinion today.  Of course, Howard liked wood for the nostalgia so maybe it wouldn't matter at all to him!  I don't really like heads much above 160 on wood either.

[ChuckC]

Lots of thoughts change with time and knowledge.  But some things don't,in spite of knowledge.  Wheelie bow guys are shooting ever lighter arrows and heads.  

HH knew what he knew.  He didn't know everything, nor do we.  Bottom line. .  if it works for you, go for it.
ChuckC

[longbowman]

While improvements to anything we do are usually good, the fact remains that everything from elephants on down have been killed with standard broadheads and regular longbows and recurves.  I believe if the archery industry would stop bringing out new stuff 75% of the current people who bowhunt would get bored and quit.
     That being said...I don't think you would sell Howard on 90% of the broadheads out there in the new "heavy" brackets.

[Lee Robinson .]

I am just curious because of his statement.

[Molson]

I don't think you can overlook the marketing value to Howard's statements either.  Howard had an image and products to sell.  If you take just what Howard says you would think no man could regularly kill animals with a 60" recurve.  Yet while Howard was writing the book, Fred Bear, Glenn St. Charles, and a host of others were doing just fine with recurves and concave broadheads!

[Lee Robinson .]

Originally posted by Molson:
I don't think you can overlook the marketing value to Howard's statements either.  Howard had an image and products to sell.  If you take just what Howard says you would think no man could regularly kill animals with a 60" recurve.  Yet while Howard was writing the book, Fred Bear, Glenn St. Charles, and a host of others were doing just fine with recurves and concave broadheads!

Was that a "cause" or an "effect?"

Being it is easy for a company like that to produce whatever they want, I highly doubt they said that because that is what they sold. Instead, I would believe they said it because the believed it...and that they made what they believed in. Additionally, HH didn't just write a book and I believe his track record illustrates he could have outshot any of the others that you mentioned. I think Fred Bear would be one of the best hunters that you mentioned, but I also believe HH would have been the best archer among those names mentioend.

I think the best answer given is the first answer...arrow spine, but I am sometimes curious as to that. No doubt many people have been successful with heavier heads, but it is my guess that heavier heads, while more during flight and impact, I suppose they would be the most sensitive to errors during the initial release of the shot.

[Molson]

I don't mean that in any negative way at all.  When Howard wrote "Hunting the Hard Way" the fiberglass era was really taking off.  There were lots of brilliant designs created, both in bows and broadheads, many are still standards today.  The longbow really got left out during that time and I think Howard was, to some extent, doing his part to promote what he loved.

Overall I think much of what Howard said and believed holds true today.  I'm sure Howard's choices were what he liked best and that is why he promoted what he did.  Times do change though.  It's been proven that short bows and recurves can be very effective at hunting, as well as three blades, four blades, and wide two blades.  

As for heavy broadheads, there's just no doubt they are a result of the popularity of carbon arrows and the wide range of dynamic spine you can get from each shaft. It was only a short time ago when there just weren't many out above 160.  Carbon arrows changed that.  We really still have the same different opinions today.  Some like big broadheads for massive blood trails.  Some like narrow broadheads for maximum penetration.  Some like high foc, some like average foc.  Everybody is right in one way or another.  There are just more choices today and a part of those choices are some mighty fine broadheads in all weights!

[straitera]

Can't say HH didn't shoot a heavy enough bow to handle anything he wanted to shoot through it. Being a die hard Hill shooter, I am somewhat disappointed at his BH;s however & will not shoot them at big game (elk).

[Lee Robinson .]

Straitera, Agreed. I understand his finding on terms of concave, length, and width of broadheads (although I prefer something a little wider myself), but the rivoted ferrel is certainly inferior to today's designs.

[BigJim]

They used to think leaches were good for curing sickness too. We learn things over time. One could certainly take animals with the heads he recommended as he took many, but how many of us would consider attempting the things he did.

He thought nothing of launching an arrow at animals in excess of 60+ yards (and considerably farther). That was the attitude of there time. One thing is for shure, everything changes.
Bigjim

[Lee Robinson .]

Yes, Jim...but the guy was so accurate that he certainly knew something on the subject that I believe to SOME degree would still hold true in terms of physics (not materials). Anyway, just food for thought.

[S.C. Hunter]

It is hard to argue with the results HH was able to achieve. I shoot 175 grain heads on my carbons to help gain arrow weight and get good flight. I have shot mostly wood as of late, and now shoot 125-145 grain heads and my flight and penetration have not suffered. I think times change and people adapt, but if a head killed a animal 40-50 years ago it will kill one today. I have not used the HH heads but I am sure they work, at least they did for Mr. Hill. The new heads work as well, but I hear stories of tracking animals for some distance after a shot. The animal shot with a Hill head was as dead as the animal shot with a new head. We all shoot what we like and get the same results, meat in the freezer.          

When Hill made the statement about the 145 grain arrow, I do not believe he was in the broadhead business.  there was a time when folks did not like heavy points up front, thinking that it made a nose heavy arrow and limited the effective range of the arrow.  Hill was reported of shooting 190 grain heads on 2018s in his later years.  When I was younger I preferred swaged shafts with 125 grain heads, to get them to fly flatter, penetration was not an issue, but accuracy was important. Although the smaller Hill broadhead is a challenge for many, I have seen it used very effectively sharpened both the Hill file method and honed and buffed to a shaving sharp edge.  Perhaps on a more moderate set-up the flaws of the riveted ferrule are strong enough.  I have personally have never had a Hill broadhead break or bend on  a deer.  On a rock, an old tractor, a dumped car in a ravine, and a fence post, yes. On a real deer, never. I need the broadhead that never misses what I am shooting at apparently.

[Lee Robinson .]

Just a little FYI...I do not like the HH broadheads themselves. My question wasn't intended to suggest that. I was just interested in the size/weight comments he made in terms of accuracy. Most of us wouldn't be able to notice if our accuracy suffered and inch.

[tradtusker]

The reason he used the lighter BH's was due to the fact he was shooting very heavy weight bows and the wooden arrows of the time where not stiff enough to support a heavy broadhead.

Times change, there are so many things we know today they did not, and there are so many new advances in materials and technology

and does it really matter?

you can kill with a 100gr BH or a 300gr BH

[pdk25]

Lot's of great options out there, that is for sure.  It would be interesting to see what HH's feelings would be today.  I know one thing, though.  The fact that he was an incredible archer and very successful hunter doesn't make his opinion on the matter fact or his equipment the best.  You can take a guitar virtuoso and put a poorly built guitar in his hands and he can make that sing, outplaying an average guitarist with great equipment.  The same holds true with trad equipment.

[ChuckC]

Back in "the day", the supposedly heavy English longbow shot longer, heavier arrows than are typically used today.  I am by no means an expert, but I am guessing that the handmade forged heads of the day weighed much more than 125 grains as well.  They shot pretty far and pretty accurately.  Many, maybe most of the aboriginal folks from the jungles use very long heavy arrows with really heavy heads.  They seem to shoot pretty well.

Whatever works for you is what is used.  

Howard had his set up.  I imagine Howard could shoot a recurve just fine, but he had what he wanted to shoot and didn't want to change.  I also imagine that he wouldn't sell as many if he suddenly thought something else was better.

Merchandising makes men say and do things that might have been different if the money wasn't right there.
ChuckC