I've never seen them as bad as they are here now. I read somewhere that deer ticks weren't prevalent in the midwest until like 2010. They seem to be the worst on days that are cool in the mornings and then warm up into the 60s by the afternoon. It's nothing to pull 10-20 deer ticks off my clothing after walking through thick brush scouting or hunting.

I've been using the premethrin spray on my outer layers, it seems to help. That being said I pulled a deer tick off my dad's back that was attached a couple weeks ago after an afternoon hunt. Never thought I'd have to check for ticks after every deer hunt in November.

Some days are just better than others....that's a fact.

I went this morning over to a small acreage I have about an hour from the house. Its pretty special because my Dad took me hunting there as a child (on my grandparents farm) and I killed my first squirrel there when I was 6. (I'm 67 now) I don't hunt it but just a handful of days a year; saving it usually for my adult son to kill a deer on the few days he gets to hunt. He went yesterday without seeing a deer, but the wind change was excellent for this morning so I decided to make the predawn trip over there... knowing he wouldn't be hunting today.

In my other three trips this year, I saw that the deer had made a 180 degree switch in the way they travel. For decades in the morning they would ALWAYS go west to east, but everytime this year they went go east to west, crossing a small creek before coming up on my side. I dragged a 18' ladder stand 150 yards and put it where I thought they must be crossing the creek the last time I went over there.

This morning, I saw a deer go down the steep 25 ft bank about 100 yards from me and hit the bottom of the creek below my line of sight. I could sometimes see a little ripple in the water on the far edge of the creek as the deer slowly walked the creek bed toward me. All of a sudden, I saw the tip of a ear emerge from the creek bottom.... and he then just popped up over the edge of the creek bank 15 yards from me! I noticed at that point the deer was a buck and not a doe. He had a large adult body but the smallest antlers I have ever seen on a grown deer (1/2"). Given Mississippi allows you to kill 'one' any buck, I figured he would be a good one to take out of the herd. The 47 pound Black Widow, 2018 shaft and two blade Stinger ripped through the deer and he ran 40 yards with blood spraying everywhere.. and fell in sight. A couple of kicks and all was quiet again.

It was a good morning, not only to add a little meat to the freezer (my third this year) but to reminisce about my childhood spent here and how I got this old.

I was in the first group of Marines to arrive in Vietnam as a unit, as opposed to Special Forces, in 1965.  We had no panty hose or girlfriends to send any, and the few Marines who had not received dear John letters yet were probably afraid to ask their girlfriends to send panty hose in case they might get the wrong idea.  So we were stuck with pulling ticks off with our fingers and getting leeches off by squirting them with John Wayne juice.  Fortunately, diseases like Lyme and Alpha Gal (what a gal she must have been) and a whole slew of STD's had not been invented yet, so ticks and leeches and condoms were more of a nuisance than a serious risk, and we just drank our warm beer and counted the days.

My first layer is called Rhyno Skin.  It was developed for Special Forces, after our troops in Vietnam kept asking their wives and girlfriends to send them pantyhose to wear.  It is true, they cannot get through the pantyhose to attach.  Rhyno Skin has bottoms, tops, head cover and gloves, all with elastic cuffs to ensure nothing can crawl underneath.  I've been using it for years.

Well Travis.... Coming into the traditional archery world from using a compound bow there are trade offs. I too hunted with heavy draw weight compounds for many years and harvested many elk and deer. I even took a 300# Russian boar one year with one shooting 444 grain aluminum shaft arrows at 292 fps.

But like you, I wanted to experience the magic of traditional archery. It was a very humbling experience for me, and it changed my hunting style considerably. When I jumped into it, I went whole hog and started building my own bows. Then it took years of shooting 3D with experienced archers before I finally developed my form to the point that I was actually shooting instinctively. When I first started out I was short drawing 70-80# long bows, and struggled greatly with consistency.

 Then I dropped my draw weight down to 55-60# and worked on my alignment at full draw, and the significance of using steady back tension and follow through. This  changed my game completely. I increased my draw length to 30" using good alignment techniques, and quit consciously thinking about a release or an anchor point. The old saying that an anchor point is not a destination, it's just part of the conclusion is very true.

Once you get to the point where you can comfortably let your subconscious do your aiming, and just concentrate on your shot placement. That's when you really start appreciating the magic of traditional archery.

I wish you the best on your adventure. Don't get too bogged down with all the numbers, and concentrate on your form and just becoming the arrow.... Kirk

I remember when Dr. Ashby's research was new to me and was being discussed quite frequently here and on other boards.  It dominated discussions on which broadhead to use.  Rt or Lt bevel and matching fletching to the bevel of the head, etc.... I bought into some of the hype and got some grizzly heads.  I think they are great heads and will do the job well if placed in the right spot (same as most any other head).  But I want to discuss some ideas in research as they apply to this discussion.

Almost all studies, that are worth any value, will have a statement about its findings along the lines of "within the limitations of this study...".  Its a nod to the fact that all studies have some limitation or limitations.  Science is rarely settled because of these limitations.  There is almost always a variable that is left out or cannot be included.  Sometimes the variable is minor and sometimes it is major.

In research studies that are worth quoting, you must have a control.  In these studies, Dr. Ashby used different heads as pseudo controls.  I'm not sure he ever established that one type of head was the "gold standard" and was therefore the control head.  All research would be conducted as a comparison to the control.  He compared several heads without really establishing what the best "accepted" head was.  And one reason for that is that there is no real gold standard.  Its a very subjective area.

The second issue was bias.  He admitted this in some of his writing.  Good research starts with a null hypothesis.  In other words, the research should start with the idea that the item, procedure, etc... is no better or not more effective than the accepted gold standard you are comparing it to.  You shouldn't start any research project with the idea that the "new" item/procedure is better.  It adds bias. 

Third, and maybe more importantly to me, the biggest limitation is the use of a carcass vs a live animal.  Now, I understand that a study on live animals would never get approved but any reference to lethality is merely an assumption in a study that can't show it.  You can infer some things from these studies but there is no real data to suggest a difference.  In order to do this, you would have to take live animals and use a broadhead of each design and shoot it into a live animal of the same species and almost exact proportions from the same bow from the same distance from the same shooter in the same altitude, barometric pressure, etc... (you see where I'm going with this).  Until you do, you cannot say one is more lethal than the other.

These studies being carcass studies, you have to make assumptions from the data on lethality.  Same thing goes for lethality studies of common handgun calibers.  Some say, .45, some say .40, others are good with 9mm and some say .380 won't work.  But there are studies that will show a .22 is enough for self defense.  Surveys of some surgeons say they can't tell the difference between calibers on the operating table.

While we can draw the conclusion that a single bevel head is better at bone breaking than other types of heads on a carcass, we cannot draw that same conclusion about lethality because it wasn't measured. You cannot measure lethality on a carcass.  You can make assumptions and you can design further studies from it but its not a cause and effect relationship without all the data.  What we are left with is empirical data or data based on our own experiences and observations.

We hear all the time that light bows aren't enough.  Double bevel two blade heads aren't enough, etc.... Truth is, empirical data tells me they both work.  I've seen complete pass throughs with a 35-40 lb bow using two blade double bevel heads with good blood trails.  Just as we have all seen it with multiblade heads.  I have also seen poor penetration with the same setup.  I've watched videos of compound shooters shooting a well set up and tuned bow get minimal penetration that was lethal sometimes and sometimes not.

So, in sum, what we know empirically is sharp heads shot accurately into the vital areas of a game animal can be lethal.  I think we can empirically say a passthrough shot is better for tracking but not necessarily more lethal.  I think we can say multiblade heads give us a different wound channel.  We can say these things based on our experience or observations.  There is no doubt, from some of the photos we've seen on here of the exit wounds made by simmons heads, they can be devastating.  But those are not all the exit wounds that exist.  Same for 3 and 4 blade heads.  I've hunted with Terry and have no doubt those Zwickeys are lethal.  Its hard to argue their effectiveness when shot by a competent bowman into the vital section of an animal.  So, what I'm saying is, you do you and I'll do me.  In my world, I'm ok with two blade double bevel heads like the Simmons Sharks, Zwickeys, STOS, and 3 blades like the woodsman, VPA, and 4 blades like the Zwickey, Phathead, etc..., or two blade single bevel heads. Width is another variable that must be evaluated, but that's another post.  Get them sharp, shoot well, and eat up.

P.S. I should say that I'm with Terry on this.  If it isn't already obvious, I'm not buying the hype on narrow, single bevel heads.  I think they are effective but I don't think they are more effective than the other heads I can shoot.

Personally I don't think you should have a problem with 9 gpp arrow weight. If you are getting good arrow flight, you may want try a different broad head.

Did you actually measure the draw weight at your draw length?

1st id bare shaft tune an arrow just to be sure the string nock is in the right place,, if its too high I had problems with cast using heavier points.    also the description of you're arrow setup I almost shooting the same thing but gold tip classics and Im 50gr more than what you are getting but I can double check that set up later.

if you are tuned to that arrow instead of messing with another brand just go to the hardware store and get a spool of the cheapest weed wacker line,,,,,pull nock off arrow and put them in there one at a time and cut them an 1/8" longer than flush,,,, try 1 length at a time by shooting each arrow looking at the trajectory or cast and you should be able to fit 3 total the arrow weight will come up a lot and spine isn't effected that I could ever tell.

they are really bad here, Ive pulled easily over 200 off me.  I know landscapers and tree workers who wear panty hose under their clothes because the ticks cannot get thru it and spraying deet on your skin everyday is well you know.....treating clothes only goes so far also here in 6' high scrub oak brush. 

Here's a pic!