What is the smallest cutting diameter broadhead you guys would use on deer? I have some one inch wide trade points I made that are flying great, but I am a little concerned about the blood trail I will get with them.
On deer? Bigger the better!
I'm sure they'll do fine. Thousands killed with
1 1/4" heads. Of coarse a heart or double lung increases your recovery substantially.
Make certain that they meet legal size for your state, especially after you sharpen them a time or two. Put them where they belong and they will kill a deer quickly. Get two holes in that deer for good blood and it will die quickly.
ChucKC
CA minimum is 7/8". So you would at least be legal here. Not sure if that's "ideal", but legal. I'd use a 1" head, but that's me, and I'm not the ethics police.
The smallest I would use is the one that's legal, I believe every state has a minimum.
Most state minimum's are 7/8", modeled after Roy Case's Kiska head, back in the day. However, not all states have that same dimensional rule, so you have to check.
CHuckC
I will check but I believe a one inch head is legal
A 1 1/2" 300 gn three blade...backed by a 100 gn insert... is the smallest BH I plan to use this fall.
I don't see any reason to shoot the smallest possible bh.
I like 1 1/8"
Your question is really more about your ability to follow a blood trail than it is about broadhead size...two friends and I once followed one for close to a mile...we eventually came to the conclusion that deer had been hit below the vitals and sure enough he was seen later that week with no apparent difficulties...spend way more time working on where you hit a game animal than you do thinking about what you need to hit them with
DDave
If they're flying great and you can get them broken glass sharp, I wouldn't think twice about shooting deer with them. It's the combination of shot placement, penetration, and sharpness that most influences any blood trail. Narrow broadheads can have the added benefit of reducing "flight response" which means the animal may not even run after a good pass through shot. ...That is unless you hit a heavy bone, then they always run, but that brings us back to shot placement right? :thumbsup:
Ron
I used the Magnus 85 grain stinger back when I lived in NY. Killed a lot of deer with them too. 7/8" was what they were and while the bloodtrails were awful, the deer always dropped within sight, so it never mattered at that time.
I agree with Ron, it's not the size that matters (no matter what some others might tell you) :) but it is all about how sharp, how long head stay sharp thru the animal, and where the shot is placed!
DD brings up an interesting point on minor wounds. After a summer eating a lot of green leafy vegetation, deer's bodies are packed with Vit K which aids in clotting & healing. Seems Momma Nature provides for that to withstand the wounds of the rut and fights!
My only problem with the "tracking" comment is you won't do that where I hunt. Our areas are such a "checker board" of access, deer will run over NO TRESPASSING marked boundaries in any direction in 100, 200, 300 yards if a marginal hit. You'd better hit em right and put em down quick. Still need to track em into thickets and such, and 2 holes leave better leaky trails!
Well I do focus on hitting them in the vitals and I practice every day but I am not perfect. Also I would argue that the size of the broadhead does influence the blood trail because I used to hunt with a compound and once shot a buck with a 2" mechanical bh and the blood trail was far better than deer I have hit in the same spot with a small broadhead. As for using a small broadhead, the benefits are that they usually fly better than larger broadheads and they get better penatration than larger broadheads. Factors that I need to consider carefully when hunting with a self bow and cane arrows
Lee I'm not sure but how wide are Hill and Grizzly & Stos Broahdeads they seem small to me too but where you are using a selfbow with cane arrows and your main focus is accuracy and penetration then by all means use the 1" wide heads they are fine,,,,, out of my 47# osage selfbow I'm using the regular Ace broadheads maybe 1 1/8" so whats an 1/8th when its cutting through the vitals.
The bigger the better imo.
Thanks Tajue17 I think they will do the trick just fine too. I was just looking for some confirmation. Team Fudd, I like big broadheads up untill they start to prevent good penetration.
A field tip through both lungs and you won't need a good blood trail. You will be fine. My wife has shot very small 2 and 3 blade broadheads for years. When she makes good shots they die fast. When she makes bad shots they don't. Thay also don't die fast when I make bad shots whith 160 grain Snuffers. Good luck post pics
Obviously you will get strong opinions on the diameter/2 blade vs 3 blade vs 4 blade debate.
I prefer narrow 2 blade design. My two most recently harvested deer did not leave a good blood trail after putting a Grizzly Kodiak through them...but then again I didn't look for one since they both went less than 50 yards. Blood trail becomes a mute point if you make a good shot.
Chuck Adams and Paul Schaffer killed most of their big game with file sharpened Zwickey Eskimos. They start out of the package at 1 1/8 so by the time they are sharpened a few times they are 1 inch or less. I shot a doe yesterday with a 1 inch Eskimo and she left good blood all the way. Only ran 60 yds. Some of my best blood trails were with Eskimos. I've shot over a hundred deer with a bunch of different heads over the years and dont believe size of broadhead puts em down any quicker. I guess it could if a multiple blade head caught an artery that a 2 blade missed. But I do know that its easier tracking one with an exit wound and penetration is gonna be optimum with a 1 inch 2 blade.
I guess I will be a dissenting voice here. Like posted above – why? What possible advantage would anyone have for shooting the minimum sized broad head you can? If its good flight there are ways to get that with larger heads.
I would not consider shooting a large game animal with anything under 1"... I personally prefer closer to 1 1/2 and above myself. However, width is not the only factor.... how much surface area may be a better determinant?
I have been on enough blood trails where fat, hide, tissue plugged up the hole and they were all but impossible to track. Yes a well-placed arrow with a sharp small head will kill an animal - no doubt. But your ability to track the animal with found blood will diminish as the cutting surface does. I know everyone harps on shot placement.... but EVERYONE, I don't care how good of a shot they are or think they are will sooner or later get a less than disable shot on a living animal that can completely duck an arrow at 20 yards..... Not to mention that your odds to cut more arteries/veins will increase with the total length of blades being pushed through an animal.
So let me ask a different question. In the unlikely event you make a bad shot would you rather have more or less total blade surface length passing through said animal?
Shoot the biggest head you can accurately and efficiently.... Just my personal observation and opinion... your results may be different.
Cut on contact heads do penetrate better then conical heads and only slightly better then expandable heads. However, many test have also proven that 2 blade Broadheads don't penetrate much further than a three blade head all else being equal. The old myth that they will blow through bone better just hasn't bore out.
One simple fact remains – Broadheads kill by hemorrhaging, Hemorrhaging is caused by sharp projectiles cutting through veins, arteries and organs. The more surface length of the blades the more hemorrhaging that occurs. Exactly why 3:1 broadheads are so devastating - they seldom only cut a hole that is equal to their width... they turn and deflect and thus often make holes several times the size of their width.
I would use the widest 2-blade I could consistently get both an entry and an exit hole with!
Bisch