I guess I will be a dissenting voice here. Like posted above – why? What possible advantage would anyone have for shooting the minimum sized broad head you can? If its good flight there are ways to get that with larger heads.
I would not consider shooting a large game animal with anything under 1"... I personally prefer closer to 1 1/2 and above myself. However, width is not the only factor.... how much surface area may be a better determinant?
I have been on enough blood trails where fat, hide, tissue plugged up the hole and they were all but impossible to track. Yes a well-placed arrow with a sharp small head will kill an animal - no doubt. But your ability to track the animal with found blood will diminish as the cutting surface does. I know everyone harps on shot placement…. but EVERYONE, I don’t care how good of a shot they are or think they are will sooner or later get a less than disable shot on a living animal that can completely duck an arrow at 20 yards….. Not to mention that your odds to cut more arteries/veins will increase with the total length of blades being pushed through an animal.
So let me ask a different question. In the unlikely event you make a bad shot would you rather have more or less total blade surface length passing through said animal?
Shoot the biggest head you can accurately and efficiently…. Just my personal observation and opinion... your results may be different.