Trad Gang

Would you say, in your experience, are more big game(hogs,deer and up) animals hit...."too far forward" or "just a little back"....

Please post an answer...


Merry Christmas to all!

I'd tend to say "a little back"

Jonathan

I would have to say," just a tad back".  I think we're all a little paranoid about getting near the shoulder blade.  Or sometimes they just take one more step.
Happy New hunting year!

I'd also say a little back. Like with hogs. Vitals are where a lot of folks think is too far forward.
Power to all of us this coming year!!!!!

I would have to say "too far back" is much more common.

I think "just a little back"will win out on this one

I'd say "a little too far back" would win this survey, followed closely by "a little high".

I'd say back.

I know from experience....

just a little back

back-people avoiding the shoulder

Back, due to shoulder, and lack of knowledge of  organ location on each game animal.

God Bless and Merry Christmas, David B.

I would have to say it would be back. I also think that hitting high seems to happen quite often.

Back

I wouls say a tad back also

Back, people aiming at the whole deer instead of picking a spot behind the shoulder!

I think back is what we hear about most.

Been there done that,  Tad back!!

back

Ron

id go with "too far back" from my experience and what iv seen in the safari industry, manly due to the lack of anatomy understanding,  not knowing where bones and vital organs actually are.

back

Most folks I know shoot too far back when they make a poor shot.  I tend to shoot too far forward when I make one.

"just a little back"

No question, in my mind.  Too far back.
homebru

back

back for sure

Looks like everyone agrees on "back"..

What are you after, Guru ?  Maybe a fix to the too far back problem ?

Id say back also

The eye naturally seeks center. As a rifle shooter using iron sights, this was made evident to me. Seeking center is also natural when shooting targets, that is where the bull is. Cork and double cork.

In the fleeting seconds before a shot, those natural tendencies are difficult to overcome. Mentally selecting a sector of the deer in which to then pick your spot is a discipline that needs to be developed in practice so that it can be utilized when the shot is presented. As your brain is usually a tad scrambled and running on blind conditioning at that point, practice is essential.

Rifle silhouette, which I took up to improve my shooting and give me the excuse to shoot more, did me a disservice in that I conditioned myself to aim for center of mass on the steel targets. Time my wobble, and snap the trigger as the crosshairs swung toward center. In the field, I went through a spell of "just a little far back."

I had to consciously untrain myself in order to get back into the groove.

Killdeer

:D    ;)

Charlie, it makes me nervous when you stand around smirking.

Killdeer   :saywhat:

Be careful Killy, your wisdom is showing.
 :)    :wavey:

Back


And Merry Christmas to you Curt and your family  :campfire:

Whoops. Sorry.
I'll go back to being a gurrrlllll.

  :rolleyes:

Depends...if a shooter has a tendency to look at the rack or face, he will shoot forward and high.

If the shooter "peeks" after releasing the arrow will follow his "arm/upper body" which can result in a forward hit. I would have to say the above average shots are always a "tad back" due to the late movement of the animal upon release or hearing the arrow heading his way.

I think people tend to aim to far back in the first place.
ChuckC

Back

Well, I don't have nearly as much experience as many here, but my misses have been forward, over, and under. I made a bad hit and it was in the shoulder blade. I guess I'd go with Orion's answer: back for most, forward for me.

Killie, I think you are absolutely correct. In my former career as a police officer, we were taught to shoot for center of mass. That is pretty effective on humans, but not so good on critters. I never tried the metallic silouettes and always shot for the head of small game with firearms. Maybe that's why I shoot closer to the front on deer.

Lots more 'back' than 'front'-back.

"To far back" in my opinion and experience.

More to the back.

I see more back, funny we were taklikin about this tonight, watchin some hunting movies we got for christmas, and a few TV shows, even the guy's that shoot wheel's seem to hit far back most of the time, One show we saw, the archers are target shooting and dead on, seemed every deer that they shot except for one was far back.  Guess it proves once again target shootin ant  the same as hunting,  I think alot of it is from not wanting to hit "bone" up front so we hunters tend to wander the shot back, I think we do it unconsciously most the time.

To far back, unless it is on TV as has been mentioned then it is way back "ooh we hit that one good"    :rolleyes:  Joseph

Definitely back.  Mostly comes from not picking a spot and shooting for the animal only.

I'm a crease shooter.I think the 3D target has made this of me so 4 me foward.As for a whole.When there is a hit.To far back.A miss.To high

ok here is what has happened to me every time I've shot at a deer. Too high or too low resulting in clean misses. The shots were always lined up perfect with the vitals but go too high or too low.

On pigs back.I shoot for the crease on deer and actually look at the white hairs under the heart.When I aim at lungs I shoot high.Thats why I shoot big broadheads. I never miss forward so why not shoot a huge head in case I miss back where penetration is not an issue.Redneck logic?RC

a little to far back

a little far back, lot far back... definately back.

The way Guru posted it..."are more hit?" I'd say "back".

On the other hand...using Killie's analogy... watchin guys shoot for score on 3d targets... the 12 is always a bit "high" for my comfort.

I was taught to shoot that crease..low to the heart...so if they do drop on me, I still get center of lung...

I just can't permit myself to shoot for a 3D 12 for fear, just like Killy said,...I might do that when it comes to game... and I want that low shot to avoid all the times a deer dropped and I watched feathers fold up going over their back!   :banghead:    :mad:  

I feel like if I didn't aim for the crease, I'd never hit a deer!

back, thats why I like the shot to be 1/4 away. It takes that to far back and turns it into meat in the cooler.

Too far back. Probably failure to pick a spot and shooting at center of mass. I think it happens to all of us at sometime.
Jack

My worst hits are usually right in the shoulder.

Back.

Back

OK.....So according to my question, it seems we are in 100 percent agreement that the over whelming majority of hits that aren't where we want them are "a little/too far back".....that's exactly my finding as well after 30yrs behind the bow.....Ok cool....

So if we're hitting "too far back", then penetration shouldn't be an issue, after all this is a soft tissue area right.

Now my next question:

So then, the "worse case scenario" we should be preparing for is massive tissue damage since we're getting back toward the liver/paunch(soft tissue)area with the overwhelming majority of our "not so perfect hits"..........yes/no?  

Please post an answer.....thanx

Yes/No, I prepare for both type shots! I want a razor sharp head on my arrow that will bust as much bone if needed and cut everything in its path and then some!

QuoteOriginally posted by Joseph:
To far back, unless it is on TV as has been mentioned then it is way back "ooh we hit that one good"     :rolleyes:   Joseph

Aint that the truth?

Yes Curt...a tad back, and yes to more damage by wider or multi blade heads.....Good thread my man....sharpening my 4 blades for TX as we speak.    :D   You can't buy a guaranteed shoulder pass through with any head, but you can pass through the rest for free all day long at a MUCH higher percentage.

Wonder if the question was turned on yourself on those 'too far back' shots...would YOU rather be shot with a 7/8ths wide head....or a 160 Snuffer?  Which one would you more likely have a chance to survive?

No.  Recovering an animal hit too far back has nothing to do with broadhead choice and everything to do with how you follow up the animal. You can't create the kind of massive tissue damage needed to make a difference with a broadhead. Virtually any bow and arrow combo will penetrate completely through and leave very little blood.  The deer will be dead.  Whether you find the deer depends on your determination and ability.  

Everyone fears the shoulder hit because there is no penetration.  Without penetration nothing vital is hit.  A shoulder hit animal is gone. It doesn't matter how long you wait, the two inches of penetration simply didn't reach anything vital.

Perhaps if their set up were more capable of achieving penetration on heavy bone, folks wouldn't be so apt to shoot far back to avoid the shoulder.

Curt, I see where this is going (160 grain Snuffers?) and tend to agree. I've thought about this as I've gone through the Ashby stuff.

I would rather have my arrow stop after 2 inches of penetration on a bad shot into the shoulder blade and have an animnal live, than gut shoot something and have it die a long, protracted death with no recovery.

The quandry is that the best broadside shot will still take you through ribs on both sides, and sheilds on bigger hogs. Therefore you can't totally disregard penetration (and use a mechanical for example). I've pretty much settled on Stinger 4 blades as the best compromise.

QuoteOriginally posted by Molson:
  Recovering an animal hit too far back has nothing to do with broadhead choice and everything to do with how you follow up the animal. You can't create the kind of massive tissue damage needed to make a difference with a broadhead.

Molson...I have always enjoyed your posts, but I could not disagree more with those two statements.

Happy Holidays sir!

QuoteOriginally posted by Molson:
 

Everyone fears the shoulder hit because there is no penetration.  Without penetration nothing vital is hit.  

Perhaps if their set up were more capable of achieving penetration on heavy bone, folks wouldn't be so apt to shoot far back to avoid the shoulder.

Condensed to highlight...but boy..mouthful was said right there...

I like what the single bevel matched with the same helical feather does in tissue causing the turning S shape... and the tanto tip for getting better penetration if it is near something hard.

Now to wait for Sharpster to get some ready for us nummies who couldn't re-do a head to save our souls!  :)

Just thought I'd provide a different point of view.  I love them big ol' Snuffer 160's too, but I still want to give them lots of time before I go after them if I hit far back.  

My hunting partner and I switched to using only the Griz 190 and 160 this year to try it out. Efoc, carbon, blah blah blah and I really can't say yet that we've seen a great difference. I'm still killing deer and he's still shooting over their backs. (We won't talk about pigs    :rolleyes:   )   :D   But now that he got a super sweet Filson vest for Christmas     :thumbsup:    he's gonna look a lot better than me while we're out there doing it!

In the end, there ain't no one way. Everyone likes what they like and it all works most times and doesn't work sometimes.  Just do your best to hit them where you should and do all you can to recover them when you don't.

You still going to Ray's with the Griz broadheads, Tim.

I like multiple blade heads simply because in all my years of bowhunting I have recovered all but one of the deer I hit "too far back". Shots into the shoulder with a multiple blade head simply stop right there. I have seen many animals harvested only to find that they had been previously shot with bh's in the shoulder and without apparent harm. I'de rather hit them in the shoulder with a head that will not kill them than one that might. Shoulder hits that go unrecovered, it seems to me, survive. Animals hit too far back with more cutting blades have a much better and quicker chance of recovery than those shot with single blade heads. Just my opinion based on my experience....and, it seems to make sense.

In over 20 years chasing stuff with a bow I've only had one shot on game that was too far back. Deflection off of something between me and the deer. I thought liver almost instantly and let the deer go lay up for almost three hours. The Zwickey did its job perfectly. I think the deer was stone dead before I got back to the truck.

My poor shots have always been either high or low, not left or right.  Most of my misses are usually too low (under the game)...

Yeah Pat. Can't wait to get down there and hunt with you and Barry again. I like the Griz a lot. Definitely sticking with it.

Maybe part of preparing for the worst case is waiting a bit longer for the best shot. I think we all agree sharp braodheads and shot placement are the most important issues, so maybe just a bit more thought before the shot. I know its hard when the shot seems to be there. Just some food for thought.

I am kinda surprised with the path this took.  I am with JDS3 on this.  

I watched the question and thought, what is too far back mean. I shot the animal, it died.  I recovered it. Is that too far back?  I don't think so.  I have never lost an animal that I shoot towards the rear.  I know that means some luck was involved but the outcome was positive.

Now, the ones that "got away" were hit too high.  I cannot conclude that a snuffer nor a single bevel would have made a difference there.  So maybe the arguement of "fear of being too close to the shoulder"holds some water.

kinda been thinking about where this was going, i like big heads and shoot snuffers and magnus 1s as a nice wide two blade.

from what iv read some would rather shoot a big multi blade head so that in the event of a hit "too far back" there is more damage and therefore more chance of killing and recovering the deer, but when hit "too far forward" it will/may not penetrate the shoulder and therefore more chance of not recovering the deer? ?

on the other hand some will shoot a small two blade so that in the event of a shoulder hit "too far forward" it is likely/possible that it penetrates far enough to kill the animal but run the risk on a hit "too far back" of not causing  enough damage and risk loosing the animal? ?

interesting both have there advantages and disadvantages however as Curt shown through the answers from his first question that we believe it more likely to be a "too far back" hit.  

of course there are countless variables and different reasons why people use small diameter 2 blades and why some use bigger multi blades.

like your thinking Curt.

Yep, I try to prepare for "massive tissue damage" by shooting razor sharp Woodsmans.  They have definitely made the difference between recovering or not recovering several deer IMO.

Sounds like a job for SUPER 160GR SNUFFER!!!

I would say back, but for me I would say forward. I for some reason like that forward shot, that shoulder is there to protect the goodies and I know it.Shawn

QuoteOriginally posted by lt-m-grow:
I am kinda surprised with the path this took.  I am with JDS3 on this.  

I watched the question and thought, what is too far back mean. I shot the animal, it died.  I recovered it. Is that too far back?  I don't think so.  I have never lost an animal that I shoot towards the rear.  I know that means some luck was involved but the outcome was positive.

Now, the ones that "got away" were hit too high.  I cannot conclude that a snuffer nor a single bevel would have made a difference there.  So maybe the arguement of "fear of being too close to the shoulder"holds some water.

No surprise but, I agree entirely. There was no "too high" option in the original question and no reference to lost or recovered animals.

I'm 47 now and have been hunting and tracking deer since I was in grammer school. I sure don't have the numbers of animals under my belt that many here do but I have tracked many bow shot deer over the years. Not just my own but, often helping friends and relatives who had lost the blood on deer they had hit.

Well over 90% of the deer I've seen permanently lost were hit neither too far back nor too far forward. They were all hit too high... and many with multi-blade heads.

The absolute worst shot I personally ever made was a perect bullseye gutshot with the sharpest original Rothar Snuffer you can imagine. I took way too long of a shot at a walking buck and found out instantly exactly how slow an arrow travels.

Fortunately for me, I got a complete pass through and being soooo far from the deer, he didn't realize what had happened. He jumped, took three steps and then stood perfectly still until his front legs buckled 45 minutes later. Gave him another 1/2 hour then aproached... dead.

Now after 45 minutes of standing in that one spot with two huge Snuffer holes in his belly, you'd think that there would be some blood on the ground but aside from two small splashes back where he was standing when the arrow zipped through him, there was not one drop on the ground where he stood stock still for so long.

When I opened him up... oh what a mess. Literally gallons of blood and stomach contense and all sorts of liquid yuk! I have no doubt that if he had run instead of standing there, I would never have recovered him.

Would one more or one less blade have made any difference?... Don't think so. Above all else, it's shot placement, pass through shots, and crazy sharp broadheads that influence blood trail quality and quantity.

The biggest, baddest, and sharpest broadhead in the world will never make up for a bad hit... no matter how many blades it happens to have.

Ron

Like Shawn L. said, that shoulder protects the good stuff,Maybe the best case for that heavy, heavy arrow. Still need that sharp head, but put some weight behind it.

Guys I'm talking about BS shots....not a bad 1/4 towards angle.....Shawn I can't remember you telling me of any un-recovered critters that you hit in the shoulder bud...

For you guys that think you're gonna shoot through shoulder bones.....give us some insight on your set-ups.....

by the way...on the "too far back" thing and what it means.....

lt-um-grow, just because you recovered something,doesn't mean that it was hit right does it? Most animals hit where they're supposed to be hit die within seconds,and are easily recovered. An animal hit "too far back" will most likely die,but sometimes hours or days later....does that make it ok just because you recover the animal?

Got another question......

In your experience....If you're getting ready to shoot and just about to release, in your opinion, is the animal more likely to step forward or backward?

on another note....this isn't a snuffer thread just 'cause I use them....I'm talking about using big ,multi blade bh's as a whole......

I would say a step forward but also dropping at the same time. Which could give you back and a bit high. Not really a good thing.

I'm not talking about a reaction to your shot, I mean natural movement, just before/as you release?

this is getting good so i want to play....

i would say the "likely" natural movement would be towards the rear as the deer shifts its weight to the hindquarters to move its front leg forward or backwards.  

answer to the first question is too far back and that my preparation for the worst case scenario isn't a 3 or 4 blade head.

Critter will be going forward . I`ve never shot an animal backing up.
  I`m with TG and Guru on this one. BIG broadheads at least for the southern deer and pigs I hunt.I shoot low pounds the last few years due to shoulder problems and wanting to be able to shoot in years to come.I always use heads at least 1 1/2 wide . With the exception of the Muzzy Phantom.Believe it or not I ordered some snuffers before this thread came up.
 The big broadhead will give you a better CHANCE for blood on a "back" shot I would think.I`ve been discussing this point with my local Buds for years.RC

I would have to say a step forward 90% of the time.

You think a lot like me bud... be afraid! Be very afraid!!
  :D  

I've only gut shot two animals in my life (that I remember). One of those stepped forward just as I released and turned the sure thing double lung into a not so nice solid gut shot.

I found it still alive and very sick some 4 hours later.

Can't begin to remember how many critters I've poked through the liver. At least in my experience, the ones hit with a big multiblade expired much quicker than those I hit with a big two blade.

I don't count on my bows being bone busters and sure ain't gonna base my set up on a few square inches of bone when theres square feet of other parts.

Now Killy knows what I was smirkin about.      ;)

I personally like a big BH but big doesn't always mean blood on the ground,most times yea but I shot a 2"er just behind the last rib kinda high since I was in a stand and it took out nearly everything with the buck only going 30 yrds into the cattail type stuff.He never left a drop of blood and while I didn't get an exit the entrance was big enuff to put your hand thru.

Now as for the narrow 2blade single bevel I'm sure it has helped on bone hits but have a hard time thinking that most folks have a setup capable of busting the knuckle and getting thru

I say that because most of us shoot under 60#lbs and under 600grs of arrow...yea yea I know there's a bunch shooting heavier both bows and arrows but most aren't and most likely will not break the knuckle in the shoulder...I've seen it stop an 80# compound,yea it broke that bad boy and turned it right around but the BH didn't enter the chest cavity and I killed it a month after my nieghbor knocked him to the ground with the shoulder break.

HAs anybody ever seen a video of a shot deer that didn't react before the arrow got there??

They drop out of reflex and high hits from that and not picking a spot are common and most often the deer is unrecovered...I pulled a BH tipped arrow from the back of the buck I killed this yr that had obviuosly been there for some time.

If you have EVER used a dog to recover a wounded deer, you would simply HAVE to agree with what Molson said on page three.

Follow up...follow up...follow up.

Two blades or a 30.06. If you push them when you shouldn`t your gonna lose them.

Keep them sharp as hell, strive to shoot your best, with as MUCH DRAW WEIGHT as you can, use bright fletching so you know where you hit, and take it from there.

"When in doubt...back out".  

Follow up...follow up...follow up.

I've used a dog before, and seen dogs used many times....I agree...follow up follow up...but its best when there's more on the ground to follow up dog or no dog....so I agree with Charlie, and my own experiences and witnesses as well.

Happy Holidays!!!   :wavey:

Always walking forward....especially from the ground blinds I have setup specifically for the quartering away shot.

Every animal I've seen backup...knew something was wrong and was thinking about the quickest exit they can make.

(http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp317/pruneemac/archeryshot.jpg)

Hope this helps.

Ive shot game with both 2 blade and mulit blade heads,  but I have not shot enough game with either to say wich might be a better choice.  All the game I shot with a 2 blade or multi blade I think would have beeen just as dead if I was using the other.  So far the only really bad HIT as far as placement ive had was pretty far back and high but I hit the main artery running along the back and the deer was dead real fast.  So I have not personaly takein enough game to come to any conclusions.  I like this thread and what other's who have more expereance taking game have to say on this subject.

Awesome thread, I base my 2 cents solely on my experience and the records I keep on each deer that I have taken. I have taken 68 deer with a bow over the years and all have been with a 2 blade broadhead except 10 (4-blade). 6 were paunch shots and all were recovered, only 1 of those did I not have enough blood trail to follow and I got lucky doing a body search the next day. However I hunt high 18-25 ft. and most of my shots are under 20 yards which gives me an exit hole coming out of the bottom 1/4 of the animal that lets the blood out better. Any deer that I have not recovered has been due to a high shot that did not get the vitals and had no trail to follow. With that said I just tried out some W/W heads and they fly so awesome that I can't wait till next year to try them out. Bottom line to me is that on a marginal hit I don't think it is which head you are using, it is your tracking skills that determine the outcome, and a little luck.

Foward
Shoot 4 the crease,as shown above.If we are talking deer only.I only use snuffers and I know this isn't a snuffer thread but I've killed enough deer w/ other heads to know whay I have confidence in.As for elk,I like a big and heavy 2 blade.Bigger bones and more tissue to go thru.This is based on the 3 elk I shot w/ trad gear.2 w/ snuffers and the final w/ 160gr 2 blade.

Did not say I did not recover them, maybe I missed that part of the question. I have recovered all but one or two deer I hit forward. Now that I shoot around 52-54#s,  I try and stay off of it but still have a tendency to shoot forward. As I have aged and learned, I recover most all my bow hit deer as I know when to wait them out or on the rare occasion to push them. Shawn

Good thread Curt......my tendency has been to shoot back and high, and the last few years I have found myself more comfortable with shooting three blade heads, either Woodsmans or Snuffer 125's......I'm also with Joe and RC on the step forward or back part, every deer I've seen that was stepping backwards was nervous and looking to leave.....

David

I would have to say stepping forward,as the shots i have made, that were back of where i wanted to hit were caused by two mistakes i made, not leading the deer and or not stopping the deer, sometimes caught up in the excitement, we react to quickly! just my .02$ worth! i don't have the bow kills that most have on here or the experience,but I have kept logs of every hunt for 36 years and after looking thru them the past couple days since curt started this thread i have viewed a patteren here for me! thanks curt!!I'm sure this is not where your going with this thread but I like that it got me thinking! I've only lost one deer to a to far back hit, this was when i first started out as a kid, my first trad hunt ever, bear 4 blade head, shot while the deer was moving,no leading, I looked for that deer for seven months,and finially found her in the spring after snow melt!I learned alot from that one deer,she went 150yards,and i walked past her 100s of times in that seven months!!

I agree with to far back.  I won't weigh in on the bh issue as I am enjoying the comments and do not have enough experience to add anything of value.  I do think that 3d targets represent the vitals to far back, leading people to picture a good lung heart shot a little to far back, and then add the forward movement of the animal and you get a liver or paunch shot.

Good stuff here guys.....

We all agree time and patience is your best friend when recovering poor hit deer. Some of the best hunters I've hunted with are some of the most impatient trackers I've ever hunted with too. Some guys naturally have a hard time controlling the adrenalin, and talk themselves into things that they know they shouldn't do....I see it over and over again....I've learned this myself through experience...


But how can you guys think that a big BH that will leave more sign and do more damage, won't help in recovery??


So we all agree that a relaxed animal(which is what we should be shooting at anyway,but not always obviously), is way more than likely going to step forward. Critters do step back, but we all know the majority of natural movement is forward a lot more than backward...OK

So wouldn't this be another good reason to shoot a big cutting BH? If this happens, you're gonna hit back in the soft tissue right?

i think it is a good reason.
there are many variables iv been know to carry 3 or 4 different BHs in my quiver and will pick which  one i shoot depending on the animal and circumstances, sometimes a big multi blade is no good sometimes a small 2 blade is no good. i guess if you where hunting say whitetail all the time you could stick to a big head if your shooting enough draw and arrow weight all the time. but when your game could range from a small Steenbuck to a massive Eland its nice to have a bit of both

Very good thread!!  Point well taken, thanks GURU.  Joe

I've only read the questions...but that is why I like the 3 blade is the answer to all three for me.  I am pretty sure that is the EXACT reason Roger made the Snuffer like he did.

That all sounds great Curt,but w/ big wide broadheads a archer has to have his or her equiptment tuned very well to shoot them.Those narrow cutting heads are more forgiving to equiptment that's not matched properly,which makes them user freindly.

This is one of those discussions where there really are no right or wrong answers. It's a lot like art: two people can look at the same painting, see different things and come away with two completely different reactions.

A very good hunting partner of mine is a huge advocate of large, multi-blade heads. His thinking is that they put animals down faster, leave better blood trails and turn accidental marginal hits into quick, lethal kills. After six bears, two moose and over a hundred whitetails, I don't question his judgment. He knows what gives him the most confidence. Several years ago I switched from large multi-blade heads to 2-blade heads. After all the animals I've killed with them, he doesn't question my judgment either.

He and I have killed a lot of game together, and ironically enough, our recovery distance are about the same. His blood trails may be slightly heavier than mine on average (2" cut 3-blade heads leave a heck of a hole), but they're generally more than good enough to easily get the job done. I say "generally" because both he and I have had hits that left very little blood, even with those flying meat cleavers on the ends of his arrows.

I agree with whoever said it's about recovery. The reason my friend and I very rarely lose deer is because we don't get on trails too soon. On marginal hits we always give the animal plenty of time and then track slowly. Another thing neither of us does is rely on our equipment to bail us out of a bad hit. We spend a lot of time practicing our shooting year round, know our effective ranges and stay well within them.

Either way, folks should use what personally gives them the most confidence. The last thing that should go through your mind at the moment of truth is doubt about your equipment. A narrow 2-blade or a huge multi-blade head will get the job done just fine.

I wasn't going to get into the broadhead thing on here, But i do agree that a wider two blade or multi blade head is better for these reasons! We do want to create as much tisue damage as possible and get as much penatration as possiable with every shot!! As bowhunters we need to acheive the best accury from our equiptment we can get!! I like to shoot heavy heads up front(175 to 200grns) on ceaders with out it costing me a small fortune!! I have both grizzlys 190s and snuffers but i need to find away to add weight to the snuffers and still glue them on! The grizzlys haven't failed me yet but yes they are a bit narrower than i like!! Curt great stuff here!!

My biology teacher in highschool was always going on and on about surface area and its relation to speed. A bigger flame heats faster than a smaller one. A bigger flame on a bigger pan, heats faster than a bigger flame on a smaller one. So on and so forth. That logic can apply here too. Bigger BH, bigger cuts/holes equates to more blood.
However, IMHO, unless you make your own BHs and are shooting something WIDER than 2 inches, I doubt very much a NOTICABLE difference could be observed amoung the manufactured BHs. BHs are a compromise between accuracy and cutting ability. Too big of a blade, and they plane. Too small of a blade, well you get the idea.
Marginal hits, no matter which is used, are still marginal hits. I think it is a better idea to practice, practice, practice...to the point where there is less of a chance of marginal hits, than it is to bang your head against a wall as to which design is best.

I like how ya did that though Curt.  :saywhat:

I'm somewhat new to bowhunting.  I'm learning from you guys everyday, good and bad.  It's my understanding that one wants as much blood on the ground as possible.  That would mean hitting the most blood filled organ and putting two large holes in the animal.  The holes would have to be large enough so that fat doesn't limit the blood loss.  You also want as much internall tissue damage as possible to cause massive blood loss.  You also want a high percentage shot that causes a "miss" to do the same amount of damage.  To me that translates to (Tree stand)a high angle shot through the ribs, tight behind the shoulder, towards the heart and out through the off side shoulder.  (Ground)Wide blade an inch or two behind the shoulder and an inch or two above. A miss left takes out the shoulder and heart.  A miss right takes out the lungs, and miss high hits the lungs and possibly the spine. So, why do we go for the ribs and risk the area gut and a lost animal?  I'm just trying to become a better predator.

Great thread Curt - and well done!

Such an obvious premise, I'm surprized no one has put it out before now.

Steve

On another note, I've only hit one deer.  Low through the ribs, two holes with a two blade.  Waited and tracked, didn't find him.  Dog tracked the next morning and never found him.  Bubbles in the blood but no deer.  I've been kicking my a$$ everyday since to become as accurate as I can.  Now I need to know, just where do I put the arrow?

TradOnly,

"Now I need to know, just where do I put the arrow?"

Probably low through one lung. The previously-mentioned buddy of mine did that last Saturday evening with a 2"-cut 3-blade head. We tracked the deer over a half mile through the snow before we found her. Had there not been snow on the ground, the trail may have ended differently.

So, we have established high is better than low and forward better than back.  What about point of aim (where you would like the arrow to hit)and angle of entry?

TradOnly-

Here's a doe I shot back in November.  The hit was as far back as you'd want for the angle that was slightly quartering away. The hit was all liver just catching the far lung on the way out. Move that hole forward by about the length of that beautifully handcrafted, osage handled, Doug Campbell Skinner and you have your aiming point.  That will give you the greatest margin of error, either  low, high, forward, or back. She went 57 yds total. I gave her 4 hours before I went after her just to be sure.

  (http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w49/molson410/Tims_DOE11-09-2008_021.jpg)

Behind the shoulder with the fore-leg forward, broadside to slightly quartering away, halfway up from white fur.  Sound right?

By the way, that is a beautiful knife.

QuoteOriginally posted by Pruneemac:
  (http://i423.photobucket.com/albums/pp317/pruneemac/archeryshot.jpg)

Hope this helps.

I would suggest people take a little time to "post mortem" their dead game.

See where the vitals actually are, where they hit, what damage the arrow did and how could they do it better next time.

Sharp and placement are key to succes.

Pruneemac, I have some problems with anatomy drawings, as shot placement guides, I would consider the heart a little bit too far back as shown in your example.

I am a believer of shooting "the triangle"

Dead centre of the front leg, one third of the chest height up from the bottom.

I do agree most people aim too far back.

QuoteOriginally posted by outbackbowhunter:
I would suggest people take a little time to "post mortem" their dead game.

See where the vitals actually are, where they hit, what damage the arrow did and how could they do it better next time.

Sharp and placement are key to success.

Excellent observation. Another thing I've noticed over the years is folks who butcher their own game seem to have a better sense the animal's bone structure. Not to knock anyone, but I've known a lot of people who've killed numerous deer and never realized that the front leg and shoulder blade form more of a question mark than an exclamation point. They also didn't know that the spine angles down as you approach the shoulder and neck region.

Thanks for the post.  I don't think I've ever seen this picture.

Tradonly,

No, I don't think we have established forward is better than back......I sure didn't see any establishment of that.  If the animal ducks on a foward shot, it drops the shoulder blade  right down where the arrow will be at impact.  Also, you said 'taking out the shoulder'......there is no guarantee of that.  Arrows are not bullets.

This is a four blade hit, my first with bleeders I like the results on the two deer I shot this season with them, I'm not certain that my lightweight set up of 45# would get good results with a three blade or not. This is a great thread it goes along with the way I have been thinking all along   :thumbsup:  
  (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y275/420W/IM000299.jpg)

Eight pages and still going. Everyone trying to learn how to be the best we can be, as bowhunters.

Without a doubt...of all the skills necessary for consistently successfull bowhunting, PATIENCE is number one.

Patience in keeping at it until you get a shot.
Patience in waiting for the RIGHT shot.
Patience (when necessary) AFTER the shot.

I would truely love to sit around a campfire, face to face, with the bowhunters on here.

Eight pages and still going...awesome thread.

Terry, I'm trying to find that "spot" that everyone tells you to concentrate on.  Within 15 yards I can hit within 2" of where I want to hit.  Of course, that's if I can control my nerves and if I can actually concentrate on said spot.

Stone Knife, where exactly on the deer is that bubbling hole you have a picture of.

Bonebuster, i know exactly what you mean.

Trad,....look at the diagram provided.

That is about THE best place to aim if you are shooting at a deer broadside. ...If the deer drops, you have accounted for the room over as you are aiming at the lower 1/3rd of the vitals...and it will likely drop to some degree...and if it don't move, then you are good to go....if you are a couple of inches low, you still get the heart if it don't move...and if it does, your right in the middle of the goodies still.

Also, if that deer drops and wheels away, you are still in good shape.  Study the diagram.

Thanks a lot me bruddas.  You guys are the best of the best.

Terry, I am thinking that the shoulder blade doesn't drop anywhere, unless you are meaning the whole body drops, putting the shoulder blade on line with the position you were aiming at.

The shoulder blade is forward and high and unless you are shooting from above and quartering toward, probably should not be impacted by your hit. If it was gonna be in a kill area it should be rearward of the shoulder blade.  

As stated in the past,  I wonder if most people are aiming behind the elbow and stating that they are aiming behind the shoulder.  This certainly corresponds with what I am shown repeatedly during Hunter Ed classes.  

From what I have seen in the past (experience) if you hit very far behind the elbow, you will likely miss lungs entirely.  

Aiming above the elbow gives you a great clear path thru both lungs and the top of the heart, however if you hit a bit low, you encounter the leg bones which can stop a broadhead.  Also, if the deer jumps the string, it can drop down to the point where you hit too high.

Unless you are using a rifle, or shooting at a frozen deer,  there is no perfect placement, due to all kinds of factors, most of which are outside our control.   "Do the best you can" is all we can do.


ChuckC

QuoteOriginally posted by TradOnly:
I'm trying to find that "spot" that everyone tells you to concentrate on.  

On whitetails, I usually try to aim for a spot that will put the arrow through the middle of the lungs. Out of a treestand at about ten yards on a broadside deer, my arrow should go through the middle of the nearside lung above the center line, and out the middle of the far side lung below the center line.

That "spot" you're seeking will depend on both the angle of the deer and how you are above or below the animal. Automatically shooting for a specific spot on deer no matter the angle can get you into a pile of trouble.

To answer the second question....an undisturbed deer (or  bear for that matter) will almost always step foward from what i have seen. Deer that I have seen that have stepped backwards were always on alert for some reason. I won't take that shot. This year, for example, I had a very large doe I have been after for two years approach my stand. She stopped about 20 yards from where I intended to take the shot. She was suspicious and for about  1/2 hour she circled and walked away, came back and did it all over again several times. She was nervous and she made me nervous. At one point I had her at about 10 yards broadside but I was already dealing with a stress headache and she seemed to be, as well. I let her walk. I had that uncomfortable feeling that shooting at her would result in a poor hit or a miss which would give me an educated deer. She never seemed to give any indication that she knew I was there...but I let her walk...and I am glad I did.  She left by taking her first step backwards.

By the way, big broadheads, mutilple blades, single blade, double bevel, single bevel...none of it matters  a wit if they are not really, really sharp and straight shooting.

As I think about this thread I have to go back and agree with Sharpster. When hunting from treestands that are over 12 feet up I tend to shoot too high. This has resulted in about 6 spine shot deer and probably double on clean misses and a number of shoulder hits that resulted in minimal penetration. On one deer I hit high a muzzle loader got him and I was there when he dragged it out. There was a lump on his top, left shoulder. At the butcher's they recovered my Woodsman and about 2" of arrow shaft. It was lodged in the heavy bone and muscle of the upper back, just over the shoulder area. It had been 6 weeks since I shot him and he showed no sign that he had been wounded and the bh and shaft were covered with scar tissue with no infection.

.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v77/Guru39/anatomy%20pix/anatomyanimation.gif)

Guru great thread. A lot of great info put out on this one.

Now that the topic seems shot placement, I've always counted 7 ribs back from the front shoulder. As a NYS Bowhunter Instructor, the Whitetail Skeletal photos, similiar to what Curt last posted, you can count 7 ribs back and that puts you in the lung area.

Always aiming slightly lower will put your arrow right in the vitals as we know most whitetails react by dropping. As I stated earlier, most of my shots are quartering away so 8 ribs back allows me to take out all vitals. Studying the skeletal structure, then visualizing that area on a live deer when your about to loose the arrow should result in a decent hit.

You can count the ribs under the hide on a deer in the woods? I don't count all that well, especially when I am counting things that are alike, like fence pickets. I find it easier to listen for the heart and aim there.

Killdeer   :saywhat:

Stone Knife, where exactly on the deer is that bubbling hole you have a picture of.

Right here   :bigsmyl:
  (http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y275/420W/IM000298.jpg)

Jason is absolutely correct.  You have to visualize the path of the arrow thru the deer and almost aim for the exit hole.  KEY point.

I started reading after page seven   :D

Lets get back to where we were headed .......

These are a given, no matter what BH you shoot an animal with....
1)Sharp, sharp bh.
2)Shot placement
3)Elapsed time after the shot
4)Patience while tracking

Some guys on this thread keep throwing these out there...but what we're really trying to talk about is.......

We've established, in the event that you don't hit where you're trying too...you are...for several reasons...overwhelmingly more likely to hit an animal "too far back"..I'll even include "high and back".   OK now my last question....

Why, Why, Why the trend towards NARROW broadheads?

Especially narrow, 7/8" two bladers....


If shooting "dangerous game"...equipment that is boarder line adequate...or "Big" big game(moose,big boar hogs,maybe elk),where penetration could be a factor simply because the way an animal is built, then I could see cause for some concern in the amount of penetration.

Once a bh goes out the other side of a critter, it's job is done!It's done all it can do! It really matters not it if it barely makes it out, or is sticking into the dirt 8"....it doesn't matter!

But for everyday type, the kind of hunting that 95 percent of us are doing on a regular day to day basis, aren't we better off shooting a big, and even better, multi bl. broadhead?????

Good question.  For a time I was using the Sasquatch.  It had great flight for a BIG broadhead.  I would still be using them if it were not for one thing.  I shot one into a layered foam target and the blade broke at the weld.

I, too, moved to the narrow head.  I now use the No Mercy but I'm looking to change to a non-vented 3-blade.

IMO as I stated earlier,narrow heads are far easier to get good flight w/.If one can tune their equiptment to shoot a 160gr SNUFFER(and yes I'm on that snuffer kick again) and shoot 1 deer in the ribcage,I beleive thats the head they would use from that point on for deer.I've taken deer w/ 50lbs @ 26 1/2'' draw shooting snuffers and the arro goes right thru them.Most Whitetail shots are under 25yrds and a bow of this weght tuned well will send massive heads thru deer.Been there done that  .The key is tunning and enough arro weight.Just MO

Too far back, I think in my experience because the critter moved or I wasn't paying attention to the shot angle.
I have never lost a deer that I hit back... never gut shot but a two or three...most back hits were liver area.
Most of the deer that I have helped track, that weren't found, were either hit too far back or too high.
For deer and turkey that's why I like a Three blade head (Woodsman). In my experience a massive wound channel is a good thing.
All deer that moved on me as the shot was loosing (not because of shot reaction) either moved forward or turned.
I always try to think about where the arrow will exit on the animal... this really helps with the shot angle (when I remember to do it).
I shoot 3-blade heads because they DO leave better blood trails and I don't see blood the best in the world, so every extra drop
helps... You never know when its gonna be that one drop of blood that helps find a critter. This is what works for me, but I can see
where a smaller head might help if you're shootin a marginal setup as far as poundage and arrow weight goes.

David

Woodsman   Zwickey   Silverflame   Razorhead    Muzzy   Thunderhead    Montec   Treeshark


 Ive taken a deer with all these heads they all work.  But most heads do have a trade off.  

#1
A 250lb plus whitetail walks at 12 yards under your tree.  Your are 20 ft up and the deer is down in a ditch making it even father down hill.  At this angle you must hit high to get a low exit. As you release the deer takes a step and you hit  "HIGH AND BACK"  the big snuffer hits the large muscle in the deers back and even your well tuned arrow slows down and does not get all the way thru. (This has happened to me and I know I'm not the only one.)  No exit hole.  The narrow head goes all the way thru, and the low exit wound makes one heck of a blood trail.

#2  
 As your stalking a woodlot, large deer 2 comes down a path not 15 yards away.  You draw and the deer catches movement you rush the shot and hit it to far back.  Your narrow 2 blade goes thru the deer so quick.  But just goes by the liver as it rotates going thru the body.  At the best you find the deer.  The big snuffer has 2 of its 3 blades hit the liver makes a big hole, you give it 4 hours and you trail it for 300 yards and find it.


 Trade offs. As for me the best blood trail I have ever seen was from a Silverflame.  At a 1 1/8 it is not "narrow" but it is a 2 blade.  But I quess this is just what ifs.  And anyone that has taken there share of deer with a tradbow must realize my point.  Even if they dont agree.  :readit:

Bigger is better when it comes to broadheads and North American hunting.  Dr. Ashby's research is very good and his results are relevant if you are hunting dangerous game or really heavy boned animals.  Even when I was in Africa hunting plains game I would have been fine shooting a Snuffer 160.  Even on my Eland it would have worked and a 4 blade broadhead wasn't a liability on the hog I shot in Australia mudcaked fighting shield and all.  Now if I was after Oz Buff or Cape Buff I would go the whole nine yards of narrow, single bevel, weight forward arrows but it is not needed in North America in my opinion.  Joseph

QuoteOriginally posted by Guru:
We've established, in the event that you don't hit where you're trying too...you are...for several reasons...overwhelmingly more likely to hit an animal "too far back"..I'll even include "high and back".   OK now my last question....

Why, Why, Why the trend towards NARROW broadheads?

Especially narrow, 7/8" two bladers....

Once a bh goes out the other side of a critter, it's job is done!It's done all it can do! It really matters not it if it barely makes it out, or is sticking into the dirt 8"....it doesn't matter!

But for everyday type, the kind of hunting that 95 percent of us are doing on a regular day to day basis, aren't we better off shooting a big, and even better, multi bl. broadhead?????

Guru,

For me, the answer to why, why, why? is  accuracy I just consistantly get better groups with two blade heads than I do with multi-blades regardless of broadhead brand or bow/arrow set-up. It's my goal to not make that high/back hit in the first place.

Respectfully, I think it does make a difference if the arrow does continue through the deer and into the dirt. I've always have had the best blood trails with "complete" pass throughs.

While we were back at question two, there were a few guys who stated they got no bloodtrails at all on "back" hits even with muti-blades, so I don't think the premise that muti-blades leave better bloodtrails on any type of hit has been decidedly proven yet. Too many other variables for a set in stone conclusion.

Ron

Guru,

Because it works.

When someone asks me why I shoot 500-grain arrows instead of 650-grain ones, my answer is:

Because it works.

When the guy at the local bow shop grills me about my use of a recurve and small broadheads instead of a BowTech with Rocket Hammerheads (huge mechanicals), I simply respond with:

Because it works.

When I'm questioned about why my arrows have normal adapters instead of steel ones for EFOC, standard fletching and no little pieces of pin striping wrapped around the shafts in front of the feathers...

Because it works.

I suppose the next question down the pike will be why my bowstrings have 12 strands of Dyna 97 instead of only 4 or 6. Let me think for a minute...

Because it works.

Why in the face of Ashby's excellent work do my broadheads still have two bevels instead of one?

Because it works.

In years past I've hunted with 4-blade heads from Zwickey and Zephyr, 3-blade Woodsmans and Thunderheads, and a pile of others. Why?

Because it works.

So to answer you question, "Why, Why, Why the trend towards NARROW broadheads?"

Why?

Because it works.

Oh come on now. Joe isn't saying he counts ribs on live deer.  He's saying count the ribs on the diagram Curt posted then visualize that location on a deer.

Reading comprehension fellas!

I haven't seen any 7/8 heads yet and really don't care to! My griz elgrande 190s are 1&3/16s scary sharp and leave increditable blood,as do my snuffers, asdo my magnus journy men, as do my ribteks! I can see if a high back hit,you would want a wide two blade or even better 3 blade as just an 1/8 inch more width could mean hitting the main aritery that runs just under the spine to the back or not/ a two blade could hit blades horzontal to this where a three blade ups the chances of catching it! other than that a bad hit in the guts is a bad hit in the guts/you may or maynot find this deer!! just my .02

I like big broad heads. To quote from The Den of the Old Bowhunter book, "We made our heavy bows heavy and our broad heads broad."

I like Ace (the big 175 & 200), Magnus I, and Snuffers.

Best shot placement on broadside deer (and hogs) is just above the front leg - not the crease behind the leg. Look again at Guru's excellent diagram. If you hit back of this point, you are still in the lungs. Tree stand and quartering shots I try to imagine the lung area and aim for the middle. I don't take straight down or very steep angle shots from above because of bad experiences with this shot angle. If this is the only shot presented, I'll wait.

See you in a few days Curt.

QuoteOriginally posted by Guru:


But how can you guys think that a big BH that will leave more sign and do more damage, won't help in recovery??

It would seem there are as many opinions as there are differing personal experiences.  I'm just a wee bit uncomfortable "assuming" that a bigger MULTI- blade broadhead, in the wrong place, will result in more damage that leads to a better blood trail and recovery.

Only deer I ever "gut" shot was a deflected arrow that was a complete pass through...with a 4-blade head!

That deer took 3 jumps...staggered, lay down..in thick serviceberry bushes I couldn't shoot through. My set up was 150 yard from the DE State Line and it was THICK along the intervening creek.

I had no choice but to wait...it took that deer 2.5 HOURS to die...

I almost gave up hunting listening to that animal heave and die slowly!

Point One: That 4 blade went through the liver! Not the guts- Undisturbed, a liver shot is supposed to be deadly...2.5 hrs while you watch and listen leaves an indelable impression! :(

Point Two: There was not ONE drop of blood where the deer lay for 2.5 hrs!

Point Three: There seems to be this "inference" that "big multi-blades...aiding in recovery of "too far back" shots. That scares me to let that sit with out some challenge...respectfully posed I hope.

I'm having problems with that if that is a conclusion drawn by others. Why? Just like the rest of us...my "sample experience" doesn't confirm that being a reasonalbe assumption.

It's been said over and over through 10 pages that there are a multitude of variables that would come into play on recovery of a "too far back" (gut shot) deer...sharpeness, pass through, undistrubed deer...etc. The mere presence or absence of an additon one or 2 blades, through the "too far back" just makes the hairs on my neck stand up...why? Because there are several people here expressing they're starting out and reading with interest. I'm afraid that a inexperienced person might think that a big 3 blade means they will have better results... and purely from my personal experience, that doesn't seem to be a reasonalbe "assumption" or conclusion.

The seasoned vets posting here, know better'n anyone that they'd never take a poor shot intentially. Nor do they rely on a particular style of broadhead (other'n deadly sharp) to make up for a poor placement.

Guru, respectfully, this emphasis quoted from you for questioning  7/8" BH, intrigues me. Is that leveled at the "altered" Griz 190 of Doc Ashby's description, if memory serves? I kinda wondered about it being less width than I was used to myself... but where the 7/8"--was that it?

There was so much "meat" in his article...about the soft tissue devastation... with the single-bevel blade and how it rotates...that to me...with the number of variables controlled, and multiple tests run... I decided to "believe" much of what was written.  

I still shoot double bevel 2 blade...after disappointing results with larger 3 blades...and 4 blades. Go figure?  :)

That doesn't mean that my opinon or experiences are better than others, but the "big broadhead, big hole = "lots of blood and better recovery..."if it's a gut shot--- I don't see it.  It makes me nervous thinking that some of our less experienced readers might draw that conclusion.. but that's just me being an old fuddiduddy!  :)  I'm seeing a lot of testimony that folks have found differently, like me...and have excellent results with 2 blade, single and double bevel...or did I dream it?

I guess that I'm like so many of us...i.e., where did my 'opinion" come from? Well, my 4 blade experience through the liver, a deadly shot..which the animal dropped in 3 steps...but took 2.5 hrs to die...and had I tried to get out of the tree...and it run into that thick briar crap...crossed into DE... I'd never have recovered it... I can say that with confidence when it lay in one spot for 2.5 HOURS and not one drop of blood was found...till I opened it up and found a flood come out...and it was a total pass through.

I have shot a couple of deer with a 3 blade WW...I got it as sharp as I could... I'm sure others could have done better. I shot one through boiler room with that 3 Blade that I watched fall within 100 yards..ran through standing corn...couldn't find any blood most of the way..just here and there...

I'm not the best tracker...but was alarmed at the light amount of blood on the ground with a pass through!   :scared:    :eek:  

It would appear that all of us base our opinions on our personal experiences... which seems right to do. But I try to remain open to other data sources. I've not switched to single bevel... but I might!

I have posted elsewhere that I realized my blades, while very sharp going in had waaay too thin a bevel, didn't hold up...and didn't come out as sharp because of it leaving less positive blood trails. I still don't know why 3 deer shot with 3 blades had lousy blood trails.

And I think I'm decent on tracking...but not an expert... so I opt for what seems to work best. Just like all the respondents here.

Thanks for listening (reading). Now help an old guy down off a soap box before I fall and break a hip!  :)

Great thread Guru.This is where I "look" on a deer.Actually a tad lower.If he don`t squat he`s had a bad day ,if he does its just as bad.RC

(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w39/rcswampbucket/sharkbite.jpg)

Ok, I guess the 7/8" thing stuck in my head from when Terry Spoke about getting shot with one or a 160 snuffer, but I've read the good Doc A. talk about 7/8"......

I know almost every head on the market is 1' or bigger.....


Doc, with all due respect...your 4 blader did what it was supposed to do....the animal took 3 steps and laid down..the deer wasn't walking or running,blood flow is bound to be minimal..What would have happened with a 2bl.? We'll never know....

Thanks, Guru, for your very civil response. I appreciate your kind questions.

And I think your questions and words summate my concern, if I didn't express myself well, I apologize.

The 4 blade did it's job. So did the 3. And all the ones shot with 2. Point was that in that case...if that arrow had HIT a rib, instead of slipping between the 10th-11th..and out behind the 4th... and starteled that deer into flight... with NO blood I could have had a devil's own time.

The end result had little to do with the blade count, more about fortune, Grace, luck, or just coincidence. I missed the rib...deer was totally relaxed, blade was good'n sharp...etc, etc.

My goal was to simply ask us not to assume that a big, multi-blade head in the "far back (guts) was going to (quoting your one post)"leave more sign and do more damage."

Obviously, many of the posters with an allegance to multi-blads, have had such good experiences. Mine and other posters experiences with mult-blades have varied.  

I would never challenge the efficacy of a mult-blade head! I did challenge any conclusion that a multi-blade head, entering "too far back" being hearlded as an advantage to a gut shot.

Confidence is a great asset in trad archery. I would never profess a single bevel is superior, or a 2 blade double. There are too many variable.

Likewise, I would not be comfortable suggesting that a gut shot with a multi-blade is going to provide better sign, more blood, or a better recovery rate.

Just hasn't happened to me and it could be any one of my variables...didn't sharpen 3 or 4 as well as 2, etc. ad naseum.

Thanks for a great thread with a lot of very interesting insights, thoughts and shared experiences.

Peace, bro... :)

I have to agree with Jason, because it works. I have only shot about 20 deer with Trad equipment but I have shot well over 50 with a compound. I always shot a head with a 1" cutting diameter, it worked wonders for me. i shoulder shot most of those deer and that little head with a heavy arrow penetrated very well. I than turned to Traditional and I shot 2 blade zwickeys. I shot around 65#s and same thing, they penetrated very well even when I hit the deer forward i got quick kills. Now move forward a couple shoulder surguries and shooting 50-54#s. I now shoot a Snuffer 3 blade and try and stay off the shoulder. I believe that the large cutting diameter helps when I hit them to far back,I get a bigger hole, more tissue cut equals more damage and in return a better chance of recovery. I still do Ok if  hit them a bit forward as well but may not have an exit hole but usually still get both lungs. Last but not least I would like to say when you do this long enough and shoot enough deer you just get a feeling for yourself what works and no one can change my mind on what I know for myself has worked for over 25 years now. Shawn

QuoteOriginally posted by Shawn Leonard:
Last but not least I would like to say when you do this long enough and shoot enough deer you just get a feeling for yourself what works and no one can change my mind on what I know for myself has worked for over 25 years now. Shawn

Well said sir.  Once you, are I, or anyone find that setup that they love its pretty hard to change our mind.

King and Killy...we laid a skeletal out after skinning and removing all the meat. Compared it to our Instructional Skeletal we show the students....Once you see this, you VISUALIZE that area on the animal before making your shot. I know your sense of humor Killy...LOL...the other fellow has been in the sun too long...Molson...thanks for reading and understanding....I'm being polite here....I could get nasty....

Personal preference with success over the years. Since 1979, I've use single blade Zwickey Eskimos and this year added the No Mercy. Why change when I've taken numerous animals with my setup. I love the Snuffers...especially on black bear and Turkeys. When I bowhunted with Roger Rothaar back in '87 and he gave me six 160 gr Snuffers to try out, I was impressed with the size and hole it left.

I decide to use them on Turkeys and Bear. Knockdown power on turkeys and large holes on bear due to the thick fur...which eats up blood.
I took 4 deer with the Snuffers but my Zwickeys out penetrated them. Large holes produce better blood trails...but any deer hit in the lungs...2 blade or 3 blade heads...won't go far.

Two edge heads impart less IMPACT trauma to the animal.

When I changed from a compound to a recurve, I switched to a two blade because I had read they give the best penetration. I quickly learned that deer react to being hit MUCH less than they did when I was shooting a heavy compound and a Thunderhead 160.(big 3-blade).

I shoot a heavy bow, and heavy arrows. My arrows don`t even slow down when they pass through ribs and lungs. Most times, the deer reacts by taking a few jumps, and stopping to try and figure out what happened. (I am talking about a relaxed deer)

In addition, from my experience, as hard as I try, I cannot get a re-sharpenable 3-blade head nearly as sharp as I can a two edge. I have tried and tried, but I NEVER get an acceptable edge...in my opinion.
Because of this I have never used one for hunting. Maybe, the edge I get is plenty sharp for hunting and I just don`t know it, BUT it does not change the fact that I can get a two edge noticeably sharper.

Blood trails from GOOD hits have never been a problem with my favored two edge heads. There have been my share of poor hits I`ve made through the years, that did not produce good blood to follow, but I learned using my Basset Hound, that mortally wounded deer do not go far before they stop to watch their backtrail. When they are sure they are not being followed, they bed soon after. Therefore, I learned to QUIETLY back out, without going even thirty yards the direction the deer went.

Common sense tells me that an extra blade can do more damage, but I did use three blades when I used Thunderheads, and I clearly saw the difference in the reaction between two edge and three.

Believe it or not, I feel I am more accurate with a two edge, than a three blade, any day. Even a big, fat, unvented, one like a Magnus-1 or a Delta. Maybe this is a mental "confidence' thing.

I belive what Bh style most use is a personal preferance based on the results that hunter has witnessed.  If a hunter has had good results with one and a few bad results with another style head he prob stay with they BH he saw good results with.  That does'nt mean his Bh is better or the other is worse, as it prob is only a small sample of game he has taken and so many variables come into play.
 I have taken my fair share of game with 2blade and multi blade heads, but I have not taken enough game, In different conditions to make any absoult conclusions.   In another forum I wasreading a thread where they ask to show pic's and tell stories about "blood trails"   Most of the post's are from coumpond guy's shooting "new style heads" but a few are from trad shooters.   I notice in this thread that a deer shoot with brand x in one post seemd to leave a massive blood trail, then in a few post's later the same BH would leave almost no blood.
 I belive many factors go into the amount of blood seen not just broadhead, even on hit's in a simailar spot,  angel of hit can make a differance as to weather blood is on the ground.  Also it often depends on what "organs or arteries" or lack there of was hit.   Ive seen some game that was well hit but bled mostly on the inside and left little blood to track.  Ive seen some hit's that eave lot's of blood.  On one deer I shoot it left a ton of blood at the spot i shot it and for maybe 20 yards, then almost no blood for another 60 yards where he lay dead.  could be he bled out almost all his blood and his blood pressure helped to push it out early on leaving good blood trail,  as his blood pressure fell he mostly bled inside leving little blood to track.  
 all shot's are different even when they seem the same and results will vary no matter what BH is used. Sure some Bh are most likely better then other's,  But I dont have the time or money to test them all ill leave that to others like DR.AHSBY ,

QuoteOriginally posted by Bonebuster:

Common sense tells me that an extra blade can do more damage

For me that pretty much sums it up guys......
 


This has been a great discussion of thoughts and experiences....thanx   :notworthy:  

Now I gotta go run some big/multi bl. bh's through some TX critters    :campfire:

My grizzly 190 is 1 3/16 inch wide and creates a spiral wound channel in soft tissue.....in my opinion once you see what a rotating broadhead does inside of a deer or hog you will have the answer to the questions, as I see them.

Oh I have the answers Ray, and I really don't need to look through anyone's eyes but my own....

Been there Ray...not impressed bud....

Exactly how much "spiraling" do you think an arrow can possibly do going through a foot wide deer?

Have you ever seen first hand what a 160 Snuffer "wound channel" looks like through a deer?    ;)  

Lets all remember what who named and created the Snuffer(just as an example)...and why he did...Roger Rothaar was on to something back then and nothing has changed!

Big BH's do more damage, and the way 'Bonebuster' said it, "common sense will tell ya that".....

RC, that is right where I like to hit 'em.

Been there? You mean you have used single bevel two blades?

I've been directly involved in over one thousand whitetail kills, and half that many hogs. There's been a LOT of lousy blood trails in that time, and a great many of them were multi-bladed heads, including a few Snuffers bent up by rib hits.

The grizzly heads do enough spiraling (one turn in 17 inches I believe) that they often "whip" the soft tissue contents into something similar to a frozen margarita-like consistency.

There's lots of ways to skin cats- you have yours, I've got mine. No need to poo-poo something that works exceedingly well for lots of other people because "you ain't impressed".

We're all after the same thing...putting them on the ground..and I know that's your motivation here.

However, if you already HAVE the answers, then you aren't asking questions, you are lecturing, right?

QuoteHowever, if you already HAVE the answers, then you aren't asking questions, you are lecturing, right?

I see Curt's method here as a unique way to present a strong case that maybe "bonebusting" ability is not the the primary concern deer hunters should have when choosing a broadhead.

Steve

Ray,  I have much less experience than you have, only 60 or so whitetail kills with wheeled gear and only a handful with trad gear.  So I am certainly not questioning experience here, I do question how one turn in 17 inches can "whip" soft tissue, and how can it be any different than my razorcap spinning in flight- yes I know it stops some spinning while inside the cavity of a whitetail.  But through post mortem examination- it spins enough to create offset entrance holes and exit hole.  Tough to tell how much of a revolution- same with a two blade I assume.  Anyway- I don't feel any soft tissue can be "blenderized" by any broadhead- unless it was spinning at a far faster rate than 1 in 17".  Most soft tissue found left in the cavity is clotted lumps of blood.  
I certainly am open to explanation and correction, again just questioning the reasoning, not your opinion/expertise... thanks Dave

Quoteoriginally posted by Bonebuster: Two edge heads impart less IMPACT trauma to the animal.

When I changed from a compound to a recurve, I switched to a two blade because I had read they give the best penetration. I quickly learned that deer react to being hit MUCH less than they did when I was shooting a heavy compound and a Thunderhead 160.(big 3-blade).

Common sense tells me that an extra blade can do more damage, but I did use three blades when I used Thunderheads, and I clearly saw the difference in the reaction between two edge and three.

Believe it or not, I feel I am more accurate with a two edge, than a three blade, any day. Even a big, fat, unvented, one like a Magnus-1 or a Delta. Maybe this is a mental "confidence' thing.

QuoteOriginally posted by Doc Nock: I have shot a couple of deer with a 3 blade WW...I got it as sharp as I could... I'm sure others could have done better. I shot one through boiler room with that 3 Blade that I watched fall within 100 yards..ran through standing corn...couldn't find any blood most of the way..just here and there... I'm not the best tracker...but was alarmed at the light amount of blood on the ground with a pass through!

QuoteOriginally posted by Guru:
 

QuoteOriginally posted by Bonebuster:

Common sense tells me that an extra blade can do more damage

For me that pretty much sums it up guys......[/b]

Guru, This has been a great thread and no disrespect intended but lets not confuse "can do more damage" (and in theory aid in recovery) with "always will". There are many far more critical factors that influence bloodtrails and game recovery than how many blades a broadhead has.

Ron

Oh no Ray, no lecturing at all bud..been a good disscussion.."1000 Whitetail kills"    :saywhat:  

DRR324,    :notworthy:

Ron, So you're saying a big bh doesn't do more damage than a small one?

DRR,
how much spinning does it take to whip a set of lungs? They are thinner than the thinnest balloon and filled with blood. Get real.

Curt, yes 1000. It doesn't take 55 bowhunters in metro Atlanta very long to kill 1000 whitetails what with 12 tags a year and primo golf course and river bottom lands along the backs of subdivisions to get that done. I started, and ran for 9 years an urban deer reduction program.

This bears little difference to any other thread we've had on broadheads....everyone thinks what they use is the "right" one..and no amount of talking is going to change anyone's mind on the subject.

It's interesting to me that many folks who don't use grizzlies sure know what the broadhead is INCAPABLE of doing!

Shooting something "back" with a three, five, or seven blade head isn't going to yield anything different than a two blade head- its still going to be a dead deer, without a blood trail to follow in most cases.

No Curt,

All things being equal (which is a rare case), the bigger head with more blades should in theory do more damage than the smaller one. Trouble is there are just too many variables to say thats the way it is everytime, end of story.

Numerous posts indicating that bigger muti-blade heads did not significantly influence the bloodtrails or recovery have been posted. We all use what we're most confident in and of course that will vary from person to person but, I think suggesting that any specific type of broadhead will improve the chances of recovering an animal is misleading to some extent. It's very much like asking the question "Which leaves better blood trails: 2 blades, 3 blades or 4 blades"? There are just too many variables in bowhunting for one set in stone answer to that question.

If I could get the same level of accuracy, sharpness, penetration, and the same minimal reaction to the shot from the animal with every broadhead type, then I'd be shooting the biggest head with the most blades I could get my hands on. Till then I'll use the one that gets me the best combination of all the above.

Thanks for the fun, civil, and thought provoking thread.  :thumbsup:

Ron

My experience with poor bloodtrails or lost game has almost always involved a hunter who thinks he has sharp broadheads but really doesn't. My only personal experiences with two blade heads have been on four deer I killed. One shot deflected off an unseen branch and hit the deer just in front of the kidney severing the artery that leads to it. The deer went about 10 yards and collapsed. I thought I had missed the deer so as I waited for it to get dark it quietly bled out. There was no cavity for the blood to fill so when I got down and couldn't find the arrow my flashlight caught the white of the deer's belly. I examined the carcass and considered myself lucky that the broadhead had not been turned 90 degrees because I was fairly sure the death would not  have been as quick or as bloody. I was shooting a Hunter's Head. I also shot a small buck from the ground with the same head. He died in less than 50 yards but in all that distance the only evidence I found was the bloody arrow which had pulled out on some brush as he ran thru. Another deer I shot with a big Mag I. Hit in the spine it dropped, just like several others I had killed with multiple blade heads. I shot another deer about a week later with the Mag I. Hit in the chest, got one lung, lliver and the arrow exited the front of the abdomen. If I didn't have snow I would not have found the deer that afternoon. It did not go far but even on the snow it left very little blood and I keep my bh's really, really sharp....I am kind of anal about that. After I shot the fourth deer with two blade heads, extremely sharp ones, I put all my two blades away and went back to my Snuffers, Woodsmans, Phantoms and now Razorcaps. By far the best trails I have had have been with the multiblade heads.

After all that has been said, and will be said, I believe  it all comes down to personal choice based on personal experience. I would love to shoot two blade heads with confidence but my experience just gets in the way. I just can't seem to make them work for me. And just for the record, I have lost as many with them as I have tagged. I would very much like to have confidence in them but it hasn't worked for me....at least not enough. Too high a ratio of lost to tagged animals.

QuoteHave you ever seen first hand what a 160 Snuffer "wound channel" looks like through a deer?

Yep...looks very similar to a bullet wound channel.  Lots of blunt force impact trauma....bruising, etc. which translates into a very excited and possibly lost deer.  Not so with surgically sharpened and polished Grizzly.  All you get is a clean slit all the way through which translates into an almost guaranteed pass thru and less trauma for the animal, extremely quick and massive hemorrhaging and a short recovery.

Honestyl Curt.....which BH would you want to be shot with if you had to go that way???  A Grizzly or your 160 Snuffer???  Which one would probably bring you more discomfort?  Which one is more likely to zip through you and stick in the cactus 20 yds behind you???  Ooops...you probably don't have any cactus where you live.  No disrespect intended...just something to think about.

I've shot them both, know how to put an edge on them and I'll take the Grizzly 190 El Grande any day.

Brett

101 ways to skin a cat!

If the Ashby style heads whip tissue blender style, would not this have a similar or even stronger alarm reaction to what some feel a multi blade creates?

Curt - old blind squirrels find a way to eat  :D  

Steve

Was I the only one that new Ray did not mean he has killed a thousand? He was involved in some way with them. I once met a young fellow who had killed over a thousand, he hunted in 3 states for about 5 straight months every year. He hunted with an old Pearson recurve and he shot all those deer with bear razorheads. I never questioned his choice of equipment, how could ya? A thousand kills and he was only 32 years old, has pictures of every kill too!! I believe Curt was just looking to get peoples opinions and not really answers because as we all can tell we all have our own "answers" to this thing we call hunting!! Mine are not set in stone but I am not about to change what works because 40 or 50 people say this or that is the best. I say do what works for you and do not worry about what the other folks are doing!! Shawn

Wow, surprised no one has gotten an aneurism yet!!!   :scared:  

So what exactly is the point? I've read lot's of good ones and it made me think... It also made me think about a few things more on my shot selection and the spot that I pick... But not about the broadheads I use, cuz I chose a few years ago on what I read on here... Now I have chosen to suit my needs based on my situation... and that changes with the season, where I am hunting, and the game I'm chasing...  

All in all a good thread as it has made folks think about things... I don;t know how to say this anymore tactfully, so here goes... but danged if I don't think there's a bunch of pot stirring than anything else...   :knothead:

Ray, In theory- the lungs are like balloons, of course with thousands of little air chambers which actually inrease the "surface" area of the tissue.  However, if a deer is 16-20" wide, and a broadhead (any type) spins at a rate of one revolution in 17", then I am guessing it is only making a 1/2 of revolution while slicing through one lung.  Certainly this is enough to create massive damage while the lung deflates instantly upon itself.  This would hold true regardless of broadhead chosen.  I have seen and held this type of deflated lung tissue, and would not be able to claim is was due to the high revolution of a spinning blade.

QuoteOriginally posted by Bill Carlsen:
My experience with poor bloodtrails or lost game has almost always involved a hunter who thinks he has sharp broadheads but really doesn't.  

X2

I have just recently converted to the Grizzly El Grande and the only reason I didn't switch earlier was because of sharpening issues.  But, with help from Ron at KME and Bill Howland from Brackenbury I can now make one deadly sharp.  I prefeced with that because I certainly do not have the experience with them that Ray has.  However, I just recently killed 2 bucks...a week a part....using this BH.  My post shot analysis of the wound channel was, at least to me, very impressive.  

There was no S shaping or blender effect.  There was no bruising or blunt force trauma you see with most other type BH's.  Nope..none of that....just a perfect, clean and almost unnoticeable slice all the way through.  Yes...there was a slight offset between the entry and exit wounds, but that's it.

The first buck was shot dead center through the heart and lower lobes of the lungs and crashed in just over 3 seconds.  The second buck did a quarter horse duck and spin on me and was hit through the middle of the spine and severed both femoral artories that run down the bottom of the spine.  I got a complete BH pass through with the BH sticking through the hide on the off side.....undamaged, still sharp and ready to be used again.  That buck went down on the spot.

What's my point?  Again, I did not see the blender effect that I've heard mentioned previously.  Nor did I see the S shaped hole.  What I did see was a cut so delicately sliced that it created a devistatingly quick and massive hemorrhage.  Quick death.  

I've shot and killed with the Snuffer and WW BH's.  Because of their design, they cause the animals to react much more than they do with the Grizzly or other 2 blade BH's that I have used previously.  Also, I noticed way more blunt force traume with these type BH's indicating to me that they are not nearly as efficient at cutting and slicing as are the good 2 blades.

When an animal is hit in the paunch, the last thing you want is for that animal to run like the dickens.  With a 3 bladed BH, that is more apt to happen and even worse....you may not get a pass through which results in a traumatized deer, elk or whatever running with an arrow sticking out of its gut.  Again...in my experience....a deer that is cleanly(pass through with an extremely sharp 2 bladed BH) shot through the gut and undisturbed will go down in a very short distance....usually within 100 yds of the shot.  Their paunch has more bleeders than most people realize and if sliced cleanly will cause the animal to died in a fairly short time.  The key to an easy recovery is how disturbed the animal was at the time of the hit.  A good surgically sharpened and polished to a mirror finish 2 bladed BH is virtually guaranteed to cause the least amount of reaction.

Just my observations and personal experience.  Not trying to preach or say my way is the only way.  Just throwing some things out there for people to chew on.  Am I opinionated?  You bet I am.  But my opinions are based on personal experience.

Brett

Good post Steertalker!!  :readit:    :thumbsup:    :thumbsup:    :thumbsup:

Curt, this is a good/entertaining thread, thanks for starting it.
My thoughts take them or leave them, I don't much care: I use two blade (Grizzly), three blade (Woodsman), and four blade (Eclipse, two blade with a bleeder) broadheads, intermix and change them without thinking much about it, and the broadheads weights vary between 125 and 190 grains.  I match the weight and therefore the type of broadhead to the arrow that flies best from a given bow.   The most important factor for me is accuracy, if you put the arrow where it should be this discussion is moot.  Accuracy is followed by good arrow flight, if you have that, ample penetration will follow.  Without penetration, this discussion is moot.  Next is a sharp broadhead, both before and after the shot.  Many people put a razor thin, super sharpe, and weak edge on the broadhead and it gets duller (is duller a word) then a butter knife when it hits a bone.  I find my broadheads stay sharper after hitting bone with a little less of an angle on the edge then most people use.    

Some of you guys need to lighten up a little bit, your too serious and taking the fun out of it. This made me realize that the broadhead topic is a little like religion, there are lots of them out there, lots of people think theirs is the only "right one", and everybody should accept their choice.  
A final thought, personally, I think many of you are spending too much time worrying about why your broadhead is the best and justifying that is, when the time would be better spent practicing to make sure it hits where it should.

This has been an informative and "spirited" discussion.  As I mentioned before I've shot one deer and lost the trail even with a tracking dog.  I'm just trying to find a broadhead that gets the job done more often than not, flies well, isn't too heavy or light, too large or too small and doesn't require a bank loan to purchase.  Not to mention, one that I can stick with for a while and not switch from every season.  I turn to this forum because whether you like it or not, I and others like me, look to all of you as the experts in the "mystical flight of the arrow" from stick and string.