While we are discussing hunting arrows...

[awbowman]

Didn't want to hyjack the previous thread of ssoden, but I love hearing what some of you guys have to say on real life hunting performance of arrows.  I love to 3d shoot, but when it comes to loosing an arrow at an animal I get REAL serious about arrow performance.  I am fairly new to traditional bow hunting, but have shot a compound for a while longer and I THINK I have come to realize some very important issues between the two.

I once read an article and can't really tell you where I read it or who wrote it, but it has stuck in my mind ever sense.  The article was on arrow performance and the point of the article was that "with at least a three blade, THE ARROW WOULD CUT THE MUSCLE across its grain and have a better chance of the wound staying open and bleeding better".  I thought it a great concept (based on my compuond performance) to sacrifice that slight amount of penetration for a "star" shaped cut.  

What say you Mr. Rob and other gurus  ....  is it better to cause the entrance wound to remain open, or get a complete pass through?  No arguing please, just your thoughts and why.

[Jim now in Kentucky]

Most fatal arrow wounds are through the lungs, which have no grain orientation. Issue is just a specious point to write an article about.

Believe me, in my 21 years editing for a newspaper, it became obvious that writers are always desperate for a subject.

Jim

[awbowman]

The point would be that if the animal bleeds mostly internally (because the wound could at least partially close) and not externally, then the blood trail is minimized.  I know a vital hit is a vital hit, but I guess I should have made myself clearer on the point I wanted people to comment on.

Thanks for the reply though

[elknut1]

3-blades hands down! That's from real life experience on elk, I mean a lot of elk not just 3-4. We've taken a total of 6 elk with 2-blades, never again, the blood from all 6 would barely paint your palm, it doesn't mean to imply that this is always the case but the odds are way against you for a good blood trail as opposed to a 3-bladed head! Blood trails are a must, a pass through is not! Wound opening & channel are what I look for, meaning those blades must be absolutely razored up!

  ElkNut1

[TIM B]

I shot 2 blade zwickys and some
Magnus for many years.  I occasionally would have difficult tracking jobs with little blood.  I have since switched to the 3 blade woodsman and am very pleased.  Makes trailing wounded critters a lot easier

[Eugene Slagle]

I'm no expert by no means but for a very short period of time I did use a 2 blade Zwicky with good success but my memory does go back that there was very little blood to trail.

Most of my hunting was & still is with a 3 blade broadhead like the Wenzel Woodsmans & Magnus Snuffers & my reasoning is similar to the theory of the triangle bayonet during the Revolution, they would make for a terrible wound that was hard to close up properly & my thinking is that with the extra blade makes for an easier wound to track blood from because it would be hard to close up.

[longarrow]

I've been using Zwickey with bleeder blades for years and have NEVER had a lack of blood trails (with a well placed shot)!

[PaddyMac]

Sometimes learning what not to do is as good as learning what to do. And sometimes those who don't know, like me, can help others know.

Go back to forum home and then scroll all the way down to the "Dr. Ashby Reports".

Fascinating stuff. Turns out as a wheelie shooter all this time I was shooting the world's worst broadhead, the NAP Razorbak 5 (and 4). I never had a problem with it, but that is because I was lucky and never hit a bone. Well, actually that's not true I did destroy one as it exited through the far shoulder on a quartering away shot. Dead doe though. I liked it because it rotated and I never had to tune it. Lots of broadhead makers say "Shoots just like a field point." I've never found that to be true, except in the case of the Razorbaks (The 100 gr. is still on the market, but the 125 is gone because of "supplier problems." I have also shot a lot of Thunderheads, but those I have broken. Had to fiddle with them, too.)

Seems to me Dr. Ashby could barely contain his nausea talking about the Razorbaks. I do like the concept of a rotating head, but it's probably just not feasible.

I never really considered penetration to be an issue. Elk or deer. Even on that shot that hit the far shoulder and every other, all my kills have been through and through. So all I've been concerned about it arrow flight and cutting surface.

Now I realize that I've been very, very lucky.

But now that I'm shooting a recurve (which I have never hunted with) I am convinced that I do need to think about penetration as well as flight and cutting surface. My margins are a lot tighter now.

And I'm sorry I have no conclusions to add except that I am ping ponging back and forth in the Great Debate between 2-blade and 3-blade. I'll try them both. I'd prefer not to shoot an adapter on my carbons (another Ashby prejudice?) and from all the videos I've seen it appears to my unpracticed eye that sharpening a three blade would be easier and cheaper to get sharp and more precise for me (KME notwithstanding) and in the Terminator, simply a better flying head with a better point and a tad bit more diameter. But Ashby makes a very convincing case for 2-blades. And since I have yet never shot one in 25-some years bowhunting -- they just weren't expensive enough I guess. I see that's changed -- I should just shoot some.

All that said, I am hedging my bets with a test kit from 3 Rivers and that will make my "final" decision, at least on weight. (Yeah, like any of them have ever been really "final.")

I'm really having a hard time getting my head wrapped around this idea of heavy arrows, FOC, and big broadheads. But I'm getting there.

[awbowman]

I have read most of the Ashby report and while I do not underestimate the effectiveness of the 2 blade to deliver a lethal shot, I am concentrating (in this discussion) on the thought that multi-blade heads produce better blood trails and hence more RECOVERED animals.

An arrow in the vitals will produce a lethal shot, but are they recovering these animals?

[Stumpkiller]

I confess - I bought Razorback 5 heads (1980?) when I owned a compound.  Never did get one into a deer.  After using several four and two edged heads I do now only use two.  A hole in each side of a deer's chest compromises the diaphrahm's ability to draw air in.  The chance for blood coming out to aid in tracking is doubled.  Also, if a rib is centered or the scapula hit a rugged two blade will have better chance of continuing through than a head with more blades.

Then there is the initial cut-on-contact of a single blade/two edge.  IMHO placement is #1, penetration is #2.  As far as "holding a wound open" the deer's own muscle tissue does a lot of that.  Wounds spread as the muscles move.  

One of the most successful bowhunters I knew loved Snuffers.  Hard to argue with his results.  Would he have done as well with a single blade?  Likely.

[PaddyMac]

OK... I have always felt that more blades have more potential to cut more blood vessels as well as make a more open hole to bleed from while the larger diameter of the two blades also has its own potential to reach more veins and arteries. I am beginning to think it is 6 of one, half dozen of another. Ashby notes that that discussion may be missing the point.

Lethality is about blood loss from the veins, arteries and organs, not necessarily the body cavity, which is what I think you're getting at.

A level angled shot allows the animal to travel a fair distance while bleeding profusely within the body cavity while a downward angled shot (from a tree stand for example) puts a hole in lower in the chest cavity resulting in more blood out on the ground faster. And that's really the issue. If you are through and through both lungs, but high, from a ground blind or on the ground, that animal can go a piece while it is bleeding like a stuck pig into its own bath tub, so to speak, regardless of the broadhead type.

Then it keels over and spills out the whole blood trail in one spot. Damn inconvenient.

Shooting low, though, is a mistake. Best blood trail I ever followed was a heart shot and it was a mistake.

[Earl E. Nov...mber]

The problems as it was explained to me is that hide is built much like a tire with layers of fibers, oriented at different angles. It is altogether possible with a two bladed head to enter with the blades parallel to one of the layers, there by creating a slit, not a hole.
This of course limits external blood loss aka poor blood trail.
Give me 3 or 4 every time.

[Trumpkin the Dwarf]

The biggest part of the setup that Dr. Ashby supports is a single beveled head which rotates through the animal creating an S-shaped cut. I have yet to see this in person but the photos I have seen lead me to believe this should make for a pretty good blood trail. Add in the increase in penetration with an extreme FOC arrow and you can shoot an even bigger two blade head which should result in more blood on the ground. I would love to hear from guys who have experience with setups like this.

P.S. check out the Simmons Tigershark. That is a two blade which can give absolutely wicked blood trails.

[awbowman]

AHHHH, the great debate!

Definitely pluses and minuses on both sides.

Thanks for the comments

[PaddyMac]

Besides the rotating head, the reason I got the Razorbak 5 was math. At 7/8" or whatever it is, you multiply that by the number of blades, vs. 1-1/8" times 3 blades and I just came up with a bigger hole for the blood to get out of. But blood trail and lethality are two different things. The blood isn't coming from outside the ribcage, it's coming from inside. Every time I cut up through the diaphram there is a big gush of blood that didn't spill out on the ground.

[durp]

awbowman...this might make matters worse for you BUT i have two examples to share with you and others...both on elk with woodsman heads.

1. 17 yard shot broadside...between ribs on entrance and all the way though the scapula on the off side so the point was pushing aginst the hide on that side...very good bloodtrail...short recovery.

2. 8 yard shot broadside...walking bull...hit the muscle on the top of the leg (missed bone) above the knee as it walked...between ribs and stuck in a rib on the off side...the ONLY blood (one very small drop) was where the bull broke the arrow off when he passed a tree...ABSOLUTLY NO OTHER BLOOD...he died within 50 yards and was easy to track running down hill.

in a perfect world you get results like the first example but results like example two happen now and then...my point is DONT rely on blood trails only...make sure you have all the other skills to back it up.

OH and i will always use 3 blade heads.

[PaddyMac]

well said, durp. I was up most of the night trailing a spike mule deer one year that either jumped string a little or i just shot back a bit ... just bled a drop here and there, like 30 yards between them and he was wandering. He didn't end up far from where he was hit, but he walked around almost in circles in a thicket of sage and bitterbrush and dust. it was my toughest one and really got to me. it was more tracking in the dust than blood but every time I started getting panicky, there was another drop. I did find him though at about 2 in the morning. I never want another one like that.

this is a lot more art than science.

We do try though.

I am going to try both 3s and 2s this summer, but at a lot more weight than I've ever shot before. My gut tells me 3 is better than 2. But unless I try both in real live hunts, I'll never know. Much depends on how they fly. And I know I'll be very reluctant to try a broadhead that doesn't fly as well as another regardless of theoretical performance on target.

[awbowman]

Good points durp and Paddy.  We hunt in cutovers and hardwood bottom thickets of central Louisiana and I have tracked and found my share of deer with no blood trails.  It is more about paying attention to the small details for sure.  I know I need to be a complete package when tracking a hit animal, but a blood trail sure does help and I believe in trying to get the best one I can.

[Recurve50 LBS]

I hope to say this correctly. Please bear with me.

1. Broadheads kill by blood loss.
 
2. A wound will clot/stop bleeding if the blade's cutting edge is dull thus creating a jagged edges around the wound.

3. A wound created by a very sharp edge will not close up and clot as quickly as a dull edged blade.
 
Example: Ever cut your self shaving? Takes forever and a day to stop bleeding.

So in my honest opinion, the debate of 2 blade V's 3 blade V's 4 blade is a non issue.If your set up shoots the broadhead accuratly and it is sharpened to a razor's edge, and you are able to put the arrow into the vitals you will kill the animal, period.

[wtpops]

Ive used 3 blade most of my life. I have only not recovered 3 animals in 30+ years of hunting. The 3 not recovered was not do to lack of blood on the ground, it was lack of a good shot.

With all the others there were for the most part good blood trails but some were not, the ones that were not were good hits, both lungs, lungs and heart so on and so on but the one thing these few had in common was the hit was mid body in hight or higher but would bleed in side. I would open them up and the chest cavity would be full.

Some of the best blood trails ive had were with artery hits.

So IMO keep them low and tight and the blood will flow with a 2 or 3 blade.

I do like my 3 blade razorcaps though.