[ppkaprince98]

What are your thoughts:
1. Cutting diameter
vs
2. Cutting surface

If you have say a 4 blade slick trick with 1-1/8" cut diameter but with 4 blades so that equals 2-1/4" cutting surface compared to say a 2" expandable? Which do you prefer?

**And i get the whole "make a good shot and it wont matter" thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jwilson48]

You need both. 10,000 blades in the diameter of a field point won't be worth a dang. 1 blade won't fly very well. Imo I've had better blood trails on 3 blade 1.5" cut than 2 blade 2" cut, but I've had crazy trails on both. My dad shot his buck last year perfect shot with a slick trick mag. He called me to trail it as he is color blind. I found it within 10 minutes but it wasn't a great trail. It was good enough to find the deer so yeah put it where it matters and that is all that matters. If you want horror movie blood shoot a rear deploy 3 blade 1.5"cut followed closely by a 2" 2 blade. I think the 3 blade puts a better hole rather than a slice, but when the angle is right with a 2 blade it will basically cut the deer in half

Sent from my SM-S906L using Tapatalk

 

[pilotpip]

I've had buckets of blood with a 1 3/16" diameter 3 blade fixed, and crappy trails with a 2" expandable, and everything in between with both. Shot placement, angle, animal position, kinetic energy, all make a difference. I'm sure that the spin of the arrow and where the blades are at impact have some sort of effect, too. Purely unscientific, and I don't have a ton of evidence to support, but the shallower the angle of shot, the "lighter" the blood trail for me.

 

[catscratch]

I've had buckets of blood with a 1 3/16" diameter 3 blade fixed, and crappy trails with a 2" expandable, and everything in between with both. Shot placement, angle, animal position, kinetic energy, all make a difference. I'm sure that the spin of the arrow and where the blades are at impact have some sort of effect, too. Purely unscientific, and I don't have a ton of evidence to support, but the shallower the angle of shot, the "lighter" the blood trail for me.

I can mirror what he said about shallow shot angles and thin blood trails. I've been hunting from the ground more, and my boys have shot a few with rifles from the ground... we seldom get a good blood trail with anything we shoot if we are on the same plane as the animal.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[creg]

not that it makes a difference but i'd rather have a simmons tree shark go through me than have a 1 inch hole be bored through me in the same place. not sure which of the two would kill quicker after being put in the same place but i know which one would heal faster.

 

[TimmyZ7]

You could have six cuts in the same 1" diameter and still be a half inch away from an artery that could turn an average blood trail into an epic one. I like both but prefer to reach out with diameter and create trauma to as many areas as the head can reach.

As far as the hole factor, it is much more difficult for a large hole to be covered by elastic hide as the deer runs off than a small one. Blood hitting the ground requires as little restriction as possible. The idea is to shoot the largest diameter head that you can consistently get two holes with. Everyone has different limitations but can achieve the same outcomes using different heads as long as they meet their mark.

 

[ppkaprince98]

Blood hitting the ground requires as little restriction as possible. The idea is to shoot the largest diameter head that you can consistently get two holes with. Everyone has different limitations but can achieve the same outcomes.

Good point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[creg]

You could have six cuts in the same 1" diameter and still be a half inch away from an artery that could turn an average blood trail into an epic one. I like both but prefer to reach out with diameter and create trauma to as many areas as the head can reach.

As far as the hole factor, it is much more difficult for a large hole to be covered by elastic hide as the deer runs off than a small one. Blood hitting the ground requires as little restriction as possible. The idea is to shoot the largest diameter head that you can consistently get two holes with. Everyone has different limitations but can achieve the same outcomes using different heads as long as they meet their mark.

with your setup i'd use a 2 inch mech too so it would be easier to pull the arrow out of the dirt or tree it sinks into after going through a deer.

 

[Michshooter]

It seems like every year I am shooting a different head so I've shot multiple deer with a lot of different heads.

The only one I have noticed to make a big difference is the Montec. Worst blood trails of any head in existence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaximus]

ive been called a lot of things, and 'pinnacle of ethics' has never been one of them. i have certain areas i hunt for does and others are buck only. when im in the buck areas, its heavy arrows and fixed heads because i want the full arsenal of shot selection. in the does only areas that are more open, i run a 2" mechanicals.

 

[thirdhandman]

Jaximus: So if you are in a doe area and a monster buck comes in, do you change arrows and broadheads? Use what ever you are confident in with bucks and make good shots, it will kill does too. That will be a lot less hassle and cost you problems in the field.:wink:

 

[bigred16]

Bigger diameter for sure

 

[jab73]

On a marginal shot, say a single lung.
Or liver shot.
The 2 blade 2" mech is a better choice..
I've had them die quickly..
All under 100 yards.

A fixed 3blade 1,1/4.
I've had great results, but not had any marginal shot to compare with..


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Ybuck]

good thread. im in to listen

 

[jaximus]

jim, some areas are does only for me, so i dont always have a choice. i am confident my setup can punch a 2" mech into a decent buck anywhere i go, i just prefer fixed heads in certain areas. it hasnt caused me trouble yet, but im sure it will at some point, so ill rethink it at that time.

other times, once the buck tag is punched, its does only wherever i go!

im in the wisconsin northern woodland zone and my county is currently bucks only. i have a few places further south in the central ag zones that they basically give away doe tags. other places i only have permission to shoot does

 

[jaximus]

but more to directly answer the question, diameter vs surface, i think as long as there is between 1.5 and 2" of total surface(measured on a plane perpendicular to the arrow shaft) it doesnt matter which way you achieve it. a 2" long slit is hard to close, just as a 1"x1" X cut of a 4 blade. as long as you have enough arrow to power it to 2 holes... just give me somthing sharp

 

[jkm97]

The best blood trails I've seen, on average, have come from Simmons Treesharks, a 2" two blade, out of recurves. But I've seen trails with 4 blade buzzcuts that have been as good or better, just not on average. I've killed about a dozen with each for reference.

 

[tpcollins]

I would tend to think along the "surface" philosophy as the longer it keeps cutting the better over a quick large punch in the animal. My first elk was at 40 yards with a 125 grain Thunderhead - not sure but probably a 1 3/8" cut and a rather lengthy blades. I have a photo somewhere that we took of the inside of the hide and I recall I could almost put my hand thru that hole!

Not sure if the longer blades contributed in it's continuous cutting effect or whether the additional amount of mass released inside an elk caused more ripping when the hide was breeched.

 

[Beendare]

What are your thoughts:
1. Cutting diameter
vs
2. Cutting surface

If you have say a 4 blade slick trick with 1-1/8" cut diameter but with 4 blades so that equals 2-1/4" cutting surface compared to say a 2" expandable? Which do you prefer?

**And i get the whole "make a good shot and it wont matter" thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think it matters much on thin skinned deer.

As the critters get bigger and tougher thats when you start to see differences with the more efficient BH designs and the better quality steel.