Best Trad Broadhead for good blood trails?

[sswv]

saying all hits are in the rib cage (which we all know are not) then...common sense says the bigger the hole the more blood loss.

common sense also says to get bigger holes you gotta shoot bigger heads (hence...multi-blade heads).

now' with that being said...I agree that a low hit/exit will produce the most blood whichever head you use.

also, a heavy thick hide on a really fat deer is gonna close that slit made by a 2-blade. on a thin skin, slim deer any SHARP head should (and does) do the job.

jus my 2cents    

[BOHO]

I have shot a lot of deer with spitfires and fixed heads. I can tell you there isnt a fixed head on the planet that can consistently give blood trails like a spitfire. Thats why I'm gonna try and shoot the 1 3/8" cut grim reaper from my Dakota in 2012. I have to do some testing but I think with a heavy enough arrow it will work fine. I hate to go back to a fixed head but if I do I will prolly use razortricks.

[hybridbow hunter]

Big Jim broadhead is also efective: 1,5" wide for 300 gr
here  beside a regular 1 1/8" VPA

 

can go in tough game with A LOT of blood: this is the "nice hero pix side"
 

and this is the "bloody side"...
 

[JamesKerr]

I seem to get the best bloodtrails from my VPA's. I can get them razor sharp.

[Bowwild]

Gee whiz, Swamp Yankee!  That motion-pic is the funniest thing...I'm grin'n so big my ears are hurting!

I've used a lot of broadheads over the years.

I will be hard pressed to put anything other than a single bevel Helix on my arrows since I first used them last season. I have brand new Silver Flames, G5 Montec carbons, G5 Strikers,  and several others that will probably never leave their drawer in my shop. (I do think the Silver Flame is too cool so I might screw that one on some day.)

That said, like many have written above -- Sharp head, well placed shot at unalerted critter, with a low exit wound is the recipe for white-tails down in sight -- usually 70 yards or less.

I'm under the unchallenged (by me) impression that multiple blade heads and my 45-49# recurves @ my 26" draw length might not be a good match. This is why I stick to 2-blades.

[Bill Carlsen]

Bowwild: My wife shoots 45# at 26". I make her arrows with 500 Beman MFX or FMJ cut to 27". On the front end I started her off with 200 grains of four blade Phantoms with which she shot thru a bear and a four point whitetail. Last year she took another four pointer but I wanted her to try the 3blade Razorcap, 200 grains. She shot another four pointer. Deer turned as she shot and it caught him in front of the left hind quarter and exited squarely in the middle of the ribs on the other side. He was down in 5 seconds.

[overbo]

Animals shot w/ a big Snuffer that have 2 holes thru the lungs,willbe be bone dry inside when you gut them.

[Landshark160]

Originally posted by Buxndiverdux:
I'd just like some opinions on broad heads and blood trails. Thanks,

Here's mine.  I have always been of the opinion that the bigger the hole you make in an animal, the better.  Since I started bowhunting in 1988, I have killed exactly 4 animals with heads smaller than 1 1/2 inches.  Three of those were with heads that were 1 3/8 inches, which is larger than what the majority of bowhunters tend to use.  


Several factors, which seem to me to be common sense, influence my opinion.  Number one is the fact that a bigger head will cause more damage.  That’s pretty obvious.  The wider the cutting width, the more tissue that will be cut.


Number two, all things being equal(sharpness, placement, etc.), a bigger hole will always give you a better bloodtrail than a smaller one.  I’ve heard it said that arrow placement is the single greatest determining factor in the quality of a bloodtrail.  I wholeheartedly agree, but I can promise you that, even on the best double lung hit, the bigger hole will leave a more profuse bloodtrail time and again.  I’ve seen evidence of this many times while trailing deer shot by bowhunting buddies over the years.  And on a less than ideal hit, the extra cutting width will sever more blood vessels and capillaries, providing greater blood loss than that of a smaller head.


And number three, holes made by big blades are much less likely to close up, or plug with matter such as fat or tissue.  Not to mention the fact that a large hole is much less likely to form, and especially retain, a blood clot.
 

And finally, the big issue.  Penetration.  Two holes are better than one.  I hear it over and over, and I totally agree.  But concerning the whitetail deer, the only thing that stands as an obstacle to penetration on the broadside, or slight quartering shots that we take, is the humerus and the scapula.   In my experience, a solid hit on these, especially near their junction, will usually stop an arrow cold, no matter the size of the head or poundage of the bow.  The spine is also tough, but I have never lost an animal I hit in the spine (probably between 15-20), even with big broadheads.  But these “tough” spots make up only a very small percentage of the area our arrows are likely to impact.  On hits that don’t encounter these areas, one should have no problems shooting big broadheads completely through deer with any reasonable draw weight/arrow weight combination that is properly tuned.     With a much higher probability of a soft tissue hit, it makes sense to me to use the biggest head that I can reliably get out the other side of the animal.

With all this said, I don't think there is a better head on the market, for consistently producing massive bloodtrails, than the Simmons TreeShark.

[steadman]

Well said Chris