# Slick Trick Broadhead Test and Tips



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

This is for Slick Trick fans, let me take this opportunity to relay a bit of information. I am asked about this broadhead test or that broadhead
test, so let me give an answer here for all at once. As far as specific tests, I have pretty much stopped reading them. Most have problems 
with Validity and Reliability and some seem they might be just a bit biased. Pretty much what can be tested to give some meaningful results
by somebody is flight and strength. Some discount plywood and steel drums, but if you notice if a head is damaged on those, on animals you
will hear a greater number of episodes where the same thing happens. 

As to reliability, that mostly comes into play with mechs, and even there testing opening or deflection you would need to first penetrate hide
to see what a head does on an animal. Same with penetration. And testing on animal parts doesn't compare well because you can't shoot the
same spot with another head, and only a fraction of an inch can give you completely different results. Foam isn't a great medium for penetration. 
But I gotta say its better than ballistic gel. It was made to show bullet expansion, and it does that well. But it sucks for cutting. If you have butchered an animal, you know that flesh and muscle has structure unlike gel, and has lubrication where gel doesn't. 

Don't read many tests but scanned one recently and the penetration winner was a head that was completely dull being mismanufactured. 
That should tell you something about ballistic gel and how well it replicates flesh, that would never happen on an animal. But of course you must have already noticed the ads with large diameter mechs outpenetrating fixed blades, and you know that isn't whats reported on animals either. 
The greatest factor in limiting penetration is diameter. Bottom line is you can take gel with a grain of salt. 

Actually hide and flesh aren't much of a challenge, its hard bone that is most important in penetration. Failing to get to the vitals or get
a passthrough for a bloodtrail can lead to a loss of an animal. And physics can't be broken, the head that cuts the most will never penetrate better than lesser cutting heads. 

The broadhead test that is best and really counts is actual performance on animals. That tells you no if ands or buts what a head is capable of.

So, hope that helps, and will post some "Broadhead Tests" on this thread for your enjoyment. Folks also ask about noise, will post on that,
and give a tip on Blade Care that I think you will appreciate. If you go to slicktrick.net and click INSTRUCTIONS there is more info about 
Tuning and stuff.

So, as always greatly appreciate the support from you Slick Trick fans, and hope you Trick a bigun this fall, Thanks Gary from Slick Trick

*NOISE:*
ANIMALS WON'T REACT TO ANY BROADHEAD ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER. 
What matters is what a deer hears from where it is listening, not what you hear behind the bow. Whatever you hear behind the bow, if you SAFELY listen down at the target you will instead hear the same noise from all your heads. There will never be a deer listening in your footsteps behind the bow. Deer in front of the bow will hear all heads and react the same, so it doesn't matter what head you shoot as far as noise.

*BLADE CARE*
MERCEDES BLADES are CUSTOM KNIFE GRADE made by LUTZ in Solingen, Germany, known for making surgical blades. They are a high carbon stainless steel. Like your knife, even though blades are stainless, exposure over time can degrade the edge a bit. You may put a bit of Pam, 3-in-1 oil, mineral oil, Vaseline, possum grease or whatever on the edges for protection. As a bit of additional advice, after shaving set your razor in a glass with olive oil. You will be surprised how they stay sharper longer and will save money to spend on bowhunting.



























Hello,*
I've been using your Slick Trick Magnum 125's for three years now, and I just recently took them on a trip to South Africa! I am a female, and shoot a 50lb Mathews Jewel. I, as well as my outfitter, was very impressed at the penetration I received on such large animals! Just wanted to send you some trophy photos (feel free to use them any way you want) and tell you THANKS for an awesome, strong broadhead. I won't ever shoot anything else! On my 2,000lb eland bull, my arrow penetrated the full thickness of the animal and was lodged in the offside shoulder. Broadhead still looks new and spins true! On my waterbuck, the Slick Trick broke the leg bone clean in half - my guide couldn't believe his eyes! Again, not even a chip on the broadhead. Received a complete passthrough on my zebra (only went 40yds!), and put a huge hole my nyala as well.*
Thanks again and enjoy the pics!
Laura Huling









Attached is a pic of a 950# Feral Hog that I harvested on Friday, June 15, 2012. 
It's my first ever hunt with Slick Tricks, and this was a warm-up hunt for an elk hunt I've scheduled for this September. I've always been a fixed-blade fan, and have used many manufacturers - all with success. But, I was wanting to try some of the newer products and after a lot of research decided on yours. Glad I tried Slick Tricks! I have to tell you that the guys I was hunting with are all abandoning their "old standbys" for Slick Tricks after seeing what kind of job they did on my hog.
Out of the box, the Standard 100's flew exactly like my field tips, out to 80 yards.
My shot on the hog was at a distance of 27 yards, hit him tight behind the front shoulder (double lung). When we skinned him out, the tip of the broad head had just poked through the skin on the far side - for my money, the closest thing to a pass-through I'd expect to see on an animal of this size. He traveled only 30 yards. Shooting a Z7Extreme at 69# and 416gr Carbon Express Maxima Hunter - tons of KE, but even at that, it takes a super sharp and well designed broad head to finish the job. You guys nailed it with your product! 
Upon examining the broad head later, there's no doubt I could use the same head over-again (even though I won't). 
Thanks for designing a superior product! I'll have a quiver full of Standard 100's on my hunt in Colorado this September. 
Barry Norton









This Blue Wildebeest is the new Roland Ward Archery World Record. Shot with the GRIZZTRICK 2 125gr. When asked what his assessment of the GT2 was, Don said, "big cuts, complete pass through, doesn't get any better than that."
Don Dvoroznak - Ripcord


HERES A RECORD GRIZZ LINK: 

It's kinda funny, you go from trying to get close enough to the Grizz of all Grizzes, to changing your pants because you are too close.
http://www.bowhunter.com/back-for-seconds-alaska-brown-bear-hunt-pays-off.html


----------



## nnelzon23 (Mar 19, 2011)

Best head out there IMO.


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

Sorry you took my testing the wrong way. i just want to point out this quote because i know your talking about the ulmer...first one was duller then normal...second that i reshot which was also a passthrough was very sharp. I'll stop at that. oldhootowl quote-Don't read many tests but scanned one recently and the penetration winner was a head that was completely dull being mismanufactured. 
That should tell you something about ballistic gel and how well it replicates flesh, that would never happen on an animal. But of course you must have already noticed the ads with large diameter mechs outpenetrating fixed blades, and you know that isn't whats reported on animals either. 
The greatest factor in limiting penetration is diameter. Bottom line is you can take gel with a grain of salt.


----------



## Michael Myers (Nov 13, 2008)

Man i was a Huge Slick Trick guy for Years...Now i will try Steelforce for Fixed....Good Luck and All the Best,Grizz


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

Not sure how I took it the wrong way, you reported the head was dull and penetrated as I said? Correct?
I didn't single out what head it was, because that wasn't important, I posted what I did because I was
reporting on BALLISTIC GEL TESTING by whoever did it. Didn't have anything to do with any one head.
Surely thats clear to folks.


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

i shot a sharp one as well and it did the same thing....im not trying to hijack this thread but you said it wouldnt do the same thing on an animal? i have butchered many and whitetail lungs are not harder to shove a broadhead through then the gel i made.....i just want to be clear i know that gel doesnt react the same,,,i wanted it to stop the broadheads.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Hoot, I've been meaning to buy some of your heads and after Seth's test I like them even more. But after reading your posts I think I'll just skip the Trick purchase............. Seth's test is what it is and the Slick's did fine.


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

I believe a sharp broadhead will penetrate an animal better than a dull one. Doesn't matter what head, a Trick or any other.
Hard to see how anybody would believe different. What it means to me, and I would think anybody, is that as I said gel isn't
a good replication of flesh. 

As far as the gel was just there to stop the broadhead, thats confusing because if thats the case I fail to see the point of measuring.
And this has nothing to do with Tricks performance in that, I was pleased with the results, and I correctly commented that gel wasn't 
a good medium there because it showed the Grizz outpenetrating the Standard and Viper, and thats not what happens on an animal, 
as I said above, you can't break the laws of physics and have the head that cuts more penetrate better than lesser cutting heads.

I work hard to honestly and accurately and politely report good info, and believe I have done so here.


----------



## pinski79 (Jan 23, 2010)

OLDHOOTOWL said:


> Didn't have anything to do with any one head.
> Surely thats clear to folks.


It pretty clear what test and what head you were talking about.


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

K, like I said, I agree, Tricks did fine. Didn't have anything to do with that. How can people get so detoured is beyond me.

P, it doesn't matter, I was commenting on an independent test of BALLISTIC GEL. Did I not report accurately what a dull head did???????
Like I said it could have been a Trick and the comment would have been the same. If a dull head, ANY HEAD, penetrates better than
sharp heads then SOMETHINGS WRONG with the test medium, in this case gel. 

Theres no crime here. Go back and read. C'mon.


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

i understand game animals is where people want to see results, but its impossible to replicate the exact same shot from one animal to the next....my test was penetration and durability first and foremost.


----------



## Clark8907 (May 11, 2010)

sethro02 said:


> i understand game animals is where people want to see results, but its impossible to replicate the exact same shot from one animal to the next....my test was penetration and durability first and foremost.


Regardless of what others say or think, I appreciate your tests very much. You have spent a lot of money and tons of time and energy to do these tests. Your right it does not show an exact representation on an animal, but it gives everyone who has read your threads an idea of how a head will perform.


----------



## Clark8907 (May 11, 2010)

I have always been a pretty devout slick trick shooter and supporter. I have went to bat in other threads for the slick tricks and oldhootowl, however I do believe I am starting to see what others have said. Also, I do not think it is very professional as a business owner to single out a certain head when everyone of us knew EXACTLY what head you were talking about. We all know slick tricks are great heads, but in all reality the point of this thread was...well...POINTLESS. No need to come on here and single out other heads and bash on a man that has spent tons and tons of time and money on these tests for all his fellow ATers to see.


----------



## Waknstak6 (Dec 27, 2008)

So if bh A and bh B were both shot into gel, and bh A out-penetrated B, then that doesn't mean it will out-penetrate on an animal?
I think if the test is done apples to apples, weather the medium is gel or anything, as long as it is uniform and consistent throughout, you should be able to see which head penetrates more. Am I way out in left field?


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

and that is what i did,,,,it was a "level playing field"


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

Gee golly, I also complimented his tests, if I recall my first comment was how people were poo pooing his use of plywood, and I
stood up for him. Is that bashing? I also complimented his testing reliability. Is that bashing? Come on now, is it?
Are you guys bashing me???? Or just misreading.

I could have said I had done tests that showed dull broadheads in ballistic gel outpenetrated sharp ones. Would everybody be on me
and say, like politics, put up or shut up, show us???????

Well, didn't have to, an independent test did, so I certainly didn't do anything biased testing. 

And like I said, you can go back and I have said for ages that ballistic gel isn't a good test medium and why.
It doesn't matter who does it, broadhead companies or forum tests or whoever.

No crime here, simple opinion on ballistic gel as a test medium, no matter who uses it. No bashing at all.


----------



## Michael Myers (Nov 13, 2008)

You make a Great Broadhead and i commend you for that,However,If i were you i would hire a Salesmen,I Didnt know who you were(Slick Trick Head Honcho) until the Other Thread and now cant believe i payed for your Product.I am not Broadhead Loyal,But have Spent $150-200 on yours the Last 3 Years,No more money for you from me,i will buy other Companies Broadheads from now on.But all the Best,Grizz.


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

Wak, first, let me say that I say this respectfully and politely, to answer your question,
water is as uniform and consistent as you can get, a level playing field, but it sucks for a test medium of penetration.
Same with sand, a head only displaces material, no cutting is done. This isn't breaking news,
the manufacturer knows gel isn't good to test cutting, but shows bullet expansion well.

This goes to Validity and Reliability, which I struggled with in graduate school to understand testing.


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

All I can say Grizz is let your conscience be your guide, but no crimes were committed here.


----------



## talon1961 (Mar 13, 2008)

I really like the Slick Trick Mags. I've used several of the ones tested, and I can't think of a single reason to change from the Slick Trick Mags. I know how they've performed for me on deer and hogs. I thought the test was interesting, but that's all it is, a test. I believe that any of the top 35 scoring heads in the test is more than adequate for taking deer, elk, or bear, and possibly every head tested would work just as well. I don't think anyone should quit using what's been working for them and switch to something else based on shooting through vinyl, plywood, and gel. I commend sethro for his hard work and diligence in testing all of these heads.


----------



## Waknstak6 (Dec 27, 2008)

OLDHOOTOWL said:


> Wak, first, let me say that I say this respectfully and politely, to answer your question,
> water is as uniform and consistent as you can get, a level playing field, but it sucks for a test medium of penetration.
> Same with sand, a head only displaces material, no cutting is done. This isn't breaking news,
> the manufacturer knows gel isn't good to test cutting, but shows bullet expansion well.
> ...


Ok, but there has to be some way to compare two heads apples to apples. To me, the gel seems to be the lesser evil. Maybe line up a dozen raw ribeye? How can we test the heads, compare the heads, before we buy them and put our game on the line?


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

Sorry Wak, but as I said in the original post, no two heads will hit exactly the same resistance. Maybe close, but not exactly.
But thats why I complimented Seth on plywood, when others were "bashing", because at least if you use decent stuff its
fairly consistent and reacts kind of like bone.

Although it doesn't show what happens when a head hits a hard bone at an angle where the tip or just one blade hits,
thats where aluminum heads bend like you see on an animal bone.

All I said was that I don't believe gel is a good medium. Because I have seen tests where large mechs outpenetrate small 3 blade heads.
I don't believe that. If you don't believe that either you agree with me.

And I don't believe a dull head will outpenetrate sharp ones on an animal. If you don't believe that either you agree with me, and don't put
much stock in gel. Thats not bashing, just an opinion based on witnessing testing and killed animals.

But if you do believe in gel, thats fine, different strokes for different folks, free country to believe whatever suits you.

As far as testing to show what works before you spend your money, that what my Animal Testing above was for. If you
have a hotter setup than the lady with the pink 50 lb bow then you can do what she did and more on those big ass African animals.
Which means American animals won't be a challenge either.


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

i'm not taking offense to you hoot. i was just pointing out a couple things. i know you skimmed through the testing and missed alot of my posts so i just wanted to clarify some things just in case, i'll keep my eye on this thread in case something gets misconstrued


----------



## Allenbd (May 23, 2011)

Man i just bought some slick tricks, this guy makes me wana pay money elsewhere.


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

Something has already gotten misconstrued, obviously. I'm not worried about selling heads though, if I was I 
wouldn't have passed on the info about oiling blades. Some will probably think I "bashed" dry heads. No, I
simply told the truth, like I did with gel. And yes, I realize folks oiling blades won't buy more like they did when
they were dry and became dull to exposure because they will stay sharper. I don't care, like gel its the truth
and I thought folks would appreciate good info. You do or don't. But I tell it straight for those who want straight.


----------



## NGsportsman (May 27, 2008)

I ain't got a dog in this fight, I've usually got 3 different broadheads in my quiver at any given time. However, when I saw that the dull Ulmer Edge (which I think is a great head) outperformed all other heads by a large margin, I knew this was a test I wasn't putting much stock in. It's the best test I've ever seen, but it's still flawed. Do I know a better way? No, and I applaud Seth for his efforts. Some of you just need to chill out.


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

Theres no place like a forum, thats for sure.


----------



## ozarksbuckslaye (Jul 24, 2008)

All I got to say is this; as long as y'all keep making and selling the standards, I'll keep buying them for however long I'm still able to hunt. Keep up the good work.


----------



## tntom (Sep 19, 2008)

Which Trick was the lady shooting?


----------



## xcr 1.5 (Feb 13, 2012)

Allenbd said:


> Man i just bought some slick tricks, this guy makes me wana pay money elsewhere.


Didn't wanna say it but.... X2


----------



## Allenbd (May 23, 2011)

OLDHOOTOWL said:


> Theres no place like a forum, thats for sure.


For the record, I was being completely sarcastic about taking my money elsewhere. I couldn't care less what the head honcho posts on a forum, as long as the heads are BA, and as everyone knows..they are!! Very satisfied. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Jerry/NJ (Jan 17, 2003)

xcr 1.5 said:


> Didn't wanna say it but.... X2


I'll take all the ST's you guys have! You're only spiting yourself.


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

She was shooting 125 Mags. I would have recommended Standards for the extra penetration, but can't fault the results she got.

Crazy tangent this took, never dreamed guys would make something out of nothing. Thought the big deal was the blade oil,
anybody who uses the olive oil with their razor will find out all I do is tell them straight stuff meant to help them.


----------



## Viper69 (Feb 4, 2003)

I cant believe we are having all this trouble over broadheads. They will all work if we as hunters do our job and our equipment is tuned properly. Use what you like and have fun hunting.


----------



## BingoFlyer (Jul 13, 2003)

BALLISTIC GEL is intende to test "bullet" penitration not arrows. As soon as I read Ballistic Gel I stopped reading as I knew the result would not be factual.

A bullet expands when hitting BG and keeps expanding until near stoping causing significant resistance to forward penetration, an arrow/broadhead cut through the material (flesh and muscle) reducing resistance.

I have been bowhunting (mostly Whitetail) since 1949 and rifle hunting since '52 and know that a sharp broadhead will penetrate nearly as far as a rifle, and with a lot less energy.

I think Gary did the right thing by going on here to explain his view and I agree with him. He has a great broadhead nad I se no reason for me to change to any other brand.


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

How about the Grizz??? Would anybody else have shot being close enough to touch him? Can't say that I would have, with my luck I would have figured
the thing would happen to take off right on me. I told Gus that I would have thrown my bow and run, and I'm not sure that was an exaggeration.


----------



## ozarksbuckslaye (Jul 24, 2008)

OLDHOOTOWL said:


> Crazy tangent this took, never dreamed guys would make something out of nothing.


Haha welcome to the internet. It only gets worse.


----------



## celtpaddy (May 16, 2011)

Hey OLDHOOTOWL keep making those standard 100's and I'll keep buying them. And by the way,the fairest price for any broadhead on the market. it is what it is.


----------



## NGsportsman (May 27, 2008)

GrizzlyMan1980 said:


> You make a Great Broadhead and i commend you for that,However,If i were you i would hire a Salesmen,I Didnt know who you were(Slick Trick Head Honcho) until the Other Thread and now cant believe i payed for your Product.I am not Broadhead Loyal,But have Spent $150-200 on yours the Last 3 Years,No more money for you from me,i will buy other Companies Broadheads from now on.But all the Best,Grizz.


It's foolish thinking like this that I just can't wrap my head around. You admit you've used this product for years, so you know from experience how good they are. You have obviously been a satisfied customer. Yet you now are looking elsewhere because of something you read on the internet?

I coudn't believe how many guys on Seth's thread said, "I've shot broadhead X for years, but now thanks to Seth's test, I'm rethinking my choice." Really? Does this test suddenly undo all the success you've had with your heads for years. The good book says a double minded man is unstable in all his ways... Remember the phrase "don't believe the hype?" Don't let something you read or something you're told replace what you've seen firsthand.


----------



## Norwegian Woods (Apr 23, 2006)

I think that *sethro02* has done a good test, but at the same time do I very much agree with *OLDHOOTOWL*.
Ballistic gel is not a good medium to test broad head penetration.
I have also said that in the test thread of *sethro02*, but I also don't know what would be better to use that would affect a broad head and arrow in a similar way as animal tissue and being totally consistent from shot to shot.
But anyone that has cut an animal that has just died(before rigor mortis has started and still warm)with a sharp knife and has tried to cut ballistic gel with the same knife knows there is a huge difference.


----------



## weekender7 (Nov 1, 2011)

NGsportsman said:


> It's foolish thinking like this that I just can't wrap my head around. You admit you've used this product for years, so you know from experience how good they are. You have obviously been a satisfied customer. Yet you now are looking elsewhere because of something you read on the internet?
> 
> I coudn't believe how many guys on Seth's thread said, "I've shot broadhead X for years, but now thanks to Seth's test, I'm rethinking my choice." Really? *Does this test suddenly undo all the success you've had with your heads for years. * The good book says a double minded man is unstable in all his ways... Remember the phrase "don't believe the hype?" Don't let something you read or something you're told replace what you've seen firsthand.


just because you have had success with a product for years doesn't mean you are using the best mouse trap. I killed a ton of game with popular large fixed blade head and it worked well, mostly in NC where I rarely had to deal with wind. Then on a caribou hunt I was rudely introduced to how much my large fixed blade head planned in a stiff cross wind. I found out that a smaller profile head like an expandable might be a better choice for me in those conditions. I had never used an expandable before then, but I have now. I sure hope I never stop learning and remain open minded enough to know that there is more than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## Elite fanboy (Dec 11, 2011)

The test is irrelevant in my mind. I have shot 15 or so deer with Slick Tricks and I got a pass through on every one of them. I shot a doe a few years ago pretty steep quartering away with a 100 grain magnum. After the arrow passed through her, it hit her off leg right in the main joint. The broadhead was still sharp enough to break the joint, and the bottom portion of her leg actually was dangling by a little piece of skin. That's all the penetration I will ever need out of a head. Or the guys like Grizz who want to stop shooting them, you're only spitting yourself.


----------



## BOWCHIEF (Oct 6, 2006)

OLDHOOTOWL, your broadheads are one of the toughest, sharpestm, best flying and deadliest heads out there. They have proven themselves and will continue to sell themselves. Keep making them and we'll keep posting pics of our dead animals :thumbs_up


----------



## Fortyneck (Oct 8, 2010)

Wow, I guess no one can have there own opinions, anymore, not even on their own thread, about their own broadheads...

Here's your sign. :thumbs_do


----------



## lovetohunt93 (Aug 3, 2010)

Man Hoot it is like Chic-Fil-A in here, people not buying your heads cause you don't believe in using ballistic gel as broadhead testing medium. (sorry could resist)

Anyway, I sure do love my ST Mags, keep up the good work.


----------



## bowtechman88 (Feb 26, 2010)

People getting their panties in a wad over nothing. Hope to get a shot at a big blacktail with the grizztricks in the next few weeks


----------



## lovetohunt93 (Aug 3, 2010)

bowtechman88 said:


> *People getting their panties in a wad over nothing*. Hope to get a shot at a big blacktail with the grizztricks in the next few weeks


Yep, this is AT.

I may have to try some of the Grizztricks sometime, only thing is I have like 20 Mags. LOL


----------



## Sneaky Apasum (Jul 11, 2006)

I can't understand why anyone got their panties wadded over this thread. He had an opinion, and he went about expressing it the proper way by making his own thread. Now people don't want to use his product because he believes certain ways of testing are better than others? What is this? A high school cheer leading squad coming to the rescue of their friend that wasn't picked for prom queen? Unreal!


----------



## Fortyneck (Oct 8, 2010)

OLDHOOTOWL said:


> ...Crazy tangent this took, never dreamed guys would make something out of nothing...





ozarksbuckslaye said:


> Haha welcome to the internet. It only gets worse.


----------



## benton (Apr 7, 2006)

Yep, It's that time of the year! One day soon, I will log into AT and 9 million ppl will be in the bowhunting section griping about anything and I'll know opening day is just around the corner!


----------



## kirkland (Jul 23, 2011)

SLICK TRICKS FOR THE WIN!

i cant believe how personal this has gotten we must be 13 again lol


----------



## markman (Apr 14, 2007)

oldhootowl, first let me say that your broadheads are some of the best in the world. My question is will you be making a head for the Deep Six inserts? I have the new Easton Injections and would love to shoot Slicktricks again but they won't fit. Please consider making your heads for the Deep Six inserts as well, you will make a lot of hunters happy if you do. i think these arrows are going to really take off. Thank You


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

Gotta chime in once more and say Dan Evans is probably out shooting his bow like I ought to be, but if he sees this thread 
he will laugh his butt off. A couple of months ago Dan called me and asked me my opinion on forums. I told him 99% of the 
folks were nice, but its like a bushel of apples. That only a very small percentage post, and lots of them are reps and such,
and play games, but the silent majority at home sees through stuff. So he will see my words were prophetic.

Dan and I are good friends, had a booth next to his at an early show. Still elk hunt as I can with his help at the show then, a great guy thats
a lumberjack near Dan. We have a lot of laughs.

Show Dan this thread and I bet he will laugh and say wheres the problem, a medium that shows a dull head penetrating better than a bunch
of sharp heads isn't a great medium to test in. People ask me to post more and say they enjoy my input and buy heads because of it, but
sometimes I think I should just be lazy and go shoot my bow and forget about helping folks.

Probably won't though, with a degree in education its just my nature to discuss stuff. Carry on. Hopefully with some useful dialogue.


----------



## kensum1 (May 16, 2010)

Tests in real life, on worst case scenarios, are what tells me the most about a broad head. This, my friends, is not the shot you want on your first ever archery elk. Too high and too far back. No I didn't find it that night, but at 8:30 the next morning there he was 400-500 yards away piled up with a Slick Trick Standard about an inch away from coming out his back left hind quarter. I don't know how many inches of penetration that was but I'm thankful for every inch of it! I'm anxious to see what will happen if I can put it where it counts this Sep!!


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

Thanks Mark, thats a subject I get asked often too, forgot to mention it for everybody. Takes time to get stuff made, and didn't find 
out about the deal until too late for this year. Considering it, if you want it I would certainly like to accommodate, will see.


----------



## markman (Apr 14, 2007)

I would love it. I understand it takes time, didn't think it would happen this season but hopefully next season!!!!! They will def be a big market share for these!


----------



## justanotherbuck (Aug 5, 2007)

well i wont be a suck up,i shot standards for two years,i thought they where just plain garbage,Farrel's snapping was not a cool thing


----------



## B52CrewChief (Nov 9, 2011)

Its de heat, its getting to folks!!! lol


----------



## higdeezy45b (Feb 4, 2011)

Can't wait to see what my GT2's will do to an unlucky whitetail this year! I also have some ST Mags I have yet to get bloody looking forward to the season. I have to agree sharpness and durability mean a lot to me.Prices are amazing for the quality product that comes to you. I'm not made of money and I like being able to resharpen the blades,although they seem to hold an edge better than a lot of heads.(Shot about 15 practice shots with GT2 and mags still shave!) With all that being said. I'm not going to bash anyone's preferred head if it gives you the confidence you need to make the kill then you have nothing to worry about. I think sethro's test is pretty neat and shows how durable a head is if nothing else. 

Season isn't far off lets have a good one!


----------



## NGsportsman (May 27, 2008)

justanotherbuck said:


> well i wont be a suck up,i shot standards for two years,i thought they where just plain garbage,Farrel's snapping was not a cool thing


I would love to hear the story of how your solid steel ferrules snapped.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

Best Broadhead I have ever used, Mercedes blade is scarry sharp. Cut me twice and you best not lay your finger on them.

Im diffiantly one of the biggest fans.

Bottomline deer die when hit right with these heads quickly. 

DB


----------



## justanotherbuck (Aug 5, 2007)

its called a bad run of ferrule's,porous metal,really no big deal ,i all ready went on several e-mails and calls to st about the problem they already taken care of the problem ,i just will never shoot them again


----------



## V-TRAIN (Feb 27, 2009)

GrizzlyMan1980 said:


> Man i was a Huge Slick Trick guy for Years...Now i will try Steelforce for Fixed....Good Luck and All the Best,Grizz


i kind of did the opposite. better stock up on bleeder blades cause they will be toast after every shot. loving the magnum.


----------



## bowhunter727 (Apr 16, 2010)

Just maybe it penatrated better becouse its a 2 blade head or maybe a better blade angle maybe less drag in a gel medium maybe 4 blades are to much for gel? Mr slick trick what about if you took a bunch of london broils and tryed to see how many the tricks could get through that sounds like a good type of test! You deff make a great head if i shot fixed it would be my choice!


----------



## tack09 (Feb 13, 2009)

Durability of a BH is one of the most important factors. Consistent, accurate flight is another. However, the ability of a BH to cut clean and cause a wound to continue to hemorrhage and not clot, is a very important factor for recovering the animal. Slick Tricks are the best at all three of these factors that I have seen to date. I have some Ulmers and some Ramcats that I am testing this year. Slick Tricks are the standard that I test everything against. 25years of bowhunting/broadhead experience in tow. Oldhootowl, your product speaks for itself no mater how these forums twist things around.


----------



## LNGBOWFLYER (Jul 19, 2012)

I think part of the original intent was to post up some real world test, so Here is why I love the 125 magnum. My 434 grain arrow travels at 264 fps. So I don't have oodles of KE. This elk was quartered away. The 125 mag busted through a rib when it entered, quartered up through both lungs, busted through the offside shoulder and stuck in the hide. The blades were dulled but I used that same head to kill two more deer. It's still good to go and ready for this year. Oh and the blood trail for the 40 yrs the elk ran/slid was like the proverbial garden hose.


----------



## LNGBOWFLYER (Jul 19, 2012)

Here's a pic of the elk. And my beautiful face.


----------



## TimmyZ7 (Aug 11, 2010)

I am a big cut man which is why I mostly shoot mechanicals. That being said the only fixed head in my quiver that can hang in punching big holes is the Grizz Trick and I don't see it losing its place in my quiver anytime soon. Unlike other heads $29.99 for a quality steel head is more then a fair way to treat customers knowing very well he could get the $40 others charge.


----------



## Porkrind (Jun 1, 2010)

OLDHOOTOWL said:


> K, like I said, I agree, Tricks did fine. Didn't have anything to do with that. How can people get so detoured is beyond me.
> 
> P, it doesn't matter, I was commenting on an independent test of BALLISTIC GEL. Did I not report accurately what a dull head did???????
> Like I said it could have been a Trick and the comment would have been the same. If a dull head, ANY HEAD, penetrates better than
> ...


 Not necessarily true. Lots of things involved in that such as drag. My wife shoots tricks and loves them but please let their results speak for themselves as they always have. 
No need to poke at a fire. People can be sensitive to statements online because they don't get the way it is ment to be said.


----------



## Porkrind (Jun 1, 2010)

Oh yeah did I mention I love tricks to. Thanks DB u influenced my decision on that two years ago whether u know it or not. Fellow Okies I'll take their word first.


----------



## ozarksbuckslaye (Jul 24, 2008)

Here's a big hole from the smallest Trick they make. It skipped through rocks for about 70 yards after center punching this n'.


----------



## brownback (Aug 15, 2006)

GrizzlyMan1980 said:


> You make a Great Broadhead and i commend you for that,However,If i were you i would hire a Salesmen,I Didnt know who you were(Slick Trick Head Honcho) until the Other Thread and now cant believe i payed for your Product.I am not Broadhead Loyal,But have Spent $150-200 on yours the Last 3 Years,No more money for you from me,i will buy other Companies Broadheads from now on.But all the Best,Grizz.


Let's get this straight. The owner of a well respected BH company brings his knowledge....which is far more superior than yours (I would bet) here to explain about testing and you take offense?? Not sure I quite understand your reasoning Salesman??? Not one time did I read where he stated "buy my BH"! To each his own but I think you went a little overboard with "salesman" bit and making the man out to be a poor business man because he gave his opinion on testing!


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

ozarksbuckslaye said:


> Here's a big hole from the smallest Trick they make. It skipped through rocks for about 70 yards after center punching this n'.



Thats exactly what you get from Slicktrick. This is from 75grn Trick. First time I ever witness a shot from a Slicktrick.

40lb bow and 14 year old young man. I couldnt believe it.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

Porkrind said:


> Oh yeah did I mention I love tricks to. Thanks DB u influenced my decision on that two years ago whether u know it or not. Fellow Okies I'll take their word first.


This hole right here made me switch. 14 year old blasted this hole and blood ever where from 40lb bow. Never forget it. The new Mercedes blades are even sharper now than then.

This Yote I hit far back didnt go 20yards. Blasted a heck of hole with 100grn magnum.

Heck of a broadhead.


----------



## NGsportsman (May 27, 2008)

Daniel Boone said:


> Bottomline deer die when hit right with these heads quickly.
> 
> DB


I shoot Tricks too, but this statement can be applied to almost every head on the market today.


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

OLDHOOTOWL said:


> Gotta chime in once more and say Dan Evans is probably out shooting his bow like I ought to be, but if he sees this thread
> he will laugh his butt off. A couple of months ago Dan called me and asked me my opinion on forums. I told him 99% of the
> folks were nice, but its like a bushel of apples. That only a very small percentage post, and lots of them are reps and such,
> and play games, but the silent majority at home sees through stuff. So he will see my words were prophetic.
> ...


What would be a good test medium for penetration?


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

Thats kinda what I want to know...to me it cant just be hard or soft..needs to be a combination of things and has to be similar everytime


----------



## NGsportsman (May 27, 2008)

Seth, I'm not faulting you or your test. Simple fact is, THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR FLESH AND BONE. Not ballistics gel, not foam, not plywood, not steel barrels. And as you already know, testing broadheads on actual flesh is too impractical and introduces too many variables to conduct a true scientific test. Your test eliminated those variables and produced scientific results, but it's still not THE PERFECT TEST, and I have no idea how to improve it. 

I believe you have accomplished your goal. You didn't set out to prove one broadhead was superior to any other. You've given hunters some numbers they can crunch and make their own decisions about what they purchase. Time will tell, with real-world results, if these heads are as good as your test says they are. Give us a couple seasons using some of these new designs, we hunters are the best broadhead testers you can find.


----------



## elkman406 (Feb 22, 2008)

The broadhead tests performed were a lot of fun to read and gave us some insight into durability. I think its safe to say (and repeat) that the ballistic gel 'rewarded' some heads more than others and not in a outwardly logical way. The anomaly of a large head out penetrating a smaller head was Gary's point. That result should indicate that there is something amiss and that one should not necessarily correlate ballistic gel penetration with penetration potential in a animals body structure.

Shooting thru a giraffe or other large animal would give you the opposite results no doubt.

The test was and will only ever be, a test in that particular medium which never simulated an animals structure. Ballistic gel is designed to stop bullets and provide a semi uniform material to show how they expand. 

I'm not tearing down the testing one bit. The test, minus repeated testing of the same head, was thorough. But it doesn't necessarily predict that the same head will perform anywhere near the same in a animal. I think the biggest 'proof' of this is how the Silver flame penetrated in the test. Of all (or most) of the heads tested, this head is world renowned for maximum penetration in animals. The fact that it didn't perform in the ballistic gel makes mine and Gary's point.

...And Seth never claimed otherwise...


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

NGsportsman said:


> I shoot Tricks too, but this statement can be applied to almost every head on the market today.


Your wrong. There a few broadheads on the market that are pure junk. Person would be a fool to try them, I shoot whats works for me. Recommend you do the same. I never said another broadhead wont work. I got a room full of heads and used several different broadheads and there all right there on the arrow. Popularity of Slick Tricks here and the pictures speaks volumes for this head.:thumbs_up
DB


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

yea i agree with what most all of you are saying,,,,my test was only a test and i mentioned everyhead would kill animals numerous times...the head that out penetrated most had an 1.5" cutting diameter and blades pivot to find least resistance...outside of that head, this test was very consistant....im in now way mad or anything right now i just want a few explanations from the op about some of his "opinions". 
1. my gel was made consistent every time, it was tougher than vitals, i wanted it to stop the the arrows which is what it does because it doesnt expand when hit, why do you think foam targets are a better medium for penetration?

2. i agree gel acts NOTHING like flesh,,,but why do say it sucks for cutting? i was trying to show the ACTUAL cut of the broadhead? do you disagree that the gel does not show how much that head cut?

3. you mentioned "that should tell you something about ballistics gel" in reference to the mechanical head....do you think gel is more inconsistent than plywood, even if made the same way everytime? 

once again not trying to start anything i just want some insight on some of these things that hootowl said....alot of opinions on here so i just want a little more insight from the op.


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

my number 2 question was referring to entrance hole scenario's


----------



## deerhunter3241 (Jun 7, 2004)

Lot of animals killed with slicktricks in the past years, but not what I'm personally looking for in a broadhead. To comment on this thread "OLDHOOTOWL" is digging a grave here. The very first post claims that all b-head testers are biased. Well how much more biased can you be than working for (or owning if that's the case) the broadhead company you are putting test up about. C'mon man you had to see this coming when you posted here pointing out flaws in the average hunters tests...! I'd stop now if I were you cause you are losing a lot of business...!


----------



## Michael Myers (Nov 13, 2008)

brownback said:


> Let's get this straight. The owner of a well respected BH company brings his knowledge....which is far more superior than yours (I would bet) here to explain about testing and you take offense?? Not sure I quite understand your reasoning Salesman??? Not one time did I read where he stated "buy my BH"! To each his own but I think you went a little overboard with "salesman" bit and making the man out to be a poor business man because he gave his opinion on testing!


No, Let's get this Straight...I have my Own opinion and will Make my Decisions.....So you Watch your Bobber,I Will watch Mine....Straight Enough for Ya:wink: But Good Huntin and yes your right i have been only Huntin with a Bow for 19 Years...Great to be Fairly Young Still,Keep up the Good Fight...Grizz


----------



## Michael Myers (Nov 13, 2008)

deerhunter3241 said:


> Lot of animals killed with slicktricks in the past years, but not what I'm personally looking for in a broadhead. To comment on this thread "OLDHOOTOWL" is digging a grave here. The very first post claims that all b-head testers are biased. Well how much more biased can you be than working for (or owning if that's the case) the broadhead company you are putting test up about. C'mon man you had to see this coming when you posted here pointing out flaws in the average hunters tests...! I'd stop now if I were you cause you are losing a lot of business...!


This what i was reffereing too.Sorry if you Slick Trick Guys have a Problem....Grizz


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

One more question OP...you said always the bigger head will not penetrate a smaller head...so for example your slick trick standard and the old school muzzy 3 blade had almost identical same blade cutting surface area, obviously the muzzy had one less blade but the 3 blades were longer and the trocar tip was slightly bigger...it out penetrated the standard slick trick, do you think thats because it had one less blade eventhough the exact amount of blades were cutting? muzzy 3 blades at 1" long, slick trick standard, 4 blades at .75"


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

sethro02 said:


> yea i agree with what most all of you are saying,,,,my test was only a test and i mentioned everyhead would kill animals numerous times...the head that out penetrated most had an 1.5" cutting diameter and blades pivot to find least resistance...outside of that head, this test was very consistant....im in now way mad or anything right now i just want a few explanations from the op about some of his "opinions".
> 1. my gel was made consistent every time, it was tougher than vitals, i wanted it to stop the the arrows which is what it does because it doesnt expand when hit, why do you think foam targets are a better medium for penetration?
> 
> 2. i agree gel acts NOTHING like flesh,,,but why do say it sucks for cutting? i was trying to show the ACTUAL cut of the broadhead? do you disagree that the gel does not show how much that head cut?
> ...


Seth others have explained the limitations of ballistics gel pretty well so I wont rehash what they have said but will give you this food for thought. The biggest part of our body is made up of water and the organs are no different. The organs are also under pressure along with the muscle and skin from ligaments and tendons. Pictures of wounds tell a lot about how this works. When you look at the pictures of the animals posted in this thread the exit wounds are muck larger than the size of the broadhead. This is due to the very sharp nature of the broadheads and the tautness of the skin and muscle on real word animals along with the liquid nature of the medium being shot into, which in this case is a living breathing animal. The sharper the broad head the better its going to penetrate and damage tissue. Being in liquid will help the broadhead penetrate better period. I discounted the results of the Ulmer Head because many years of shooting animals with broadheads had taught me that sharper blades penetrate better, leave better blood trails, and do more tissue damage.


----------



## brownback (Aug 15, 2006)

GrizzlyMan1980 said:


> No, Let's get this Straight...I have my Own opinion and will Make my Decisions.....So you Watch your Bobber,I Will watch Mine....Straight Enough for Ya:wink: But Good Huntin and yes your right i have been only Huntin with a Bow for 19 Years...Great to be Fairly Young Still,Keep up the Good Fight...Grizz


Nope, believe your arrow flies a little crooked friend:wink: wait a minute let me do it one more time :wink: there we go. Funny how you never really had a problem with this thread until you found out he was the owner. I guess he shouldn't have an opinion correct? Keep tuning you'll get it straight!


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

yes and once again i completely understand what you are talking about on how tissue damage works and lubrication and the whole nine yards...i appreciate your explanation but it's not really what i'm asking him


----------



## chesnut oak (Dec 5, 2009)

GrizzlyMan1980 said:


> You make a Great Broadhead and i commend you for that,However,If i were you i would hire a Salesmen,I Didnt know who you were(Slick Trick Head Honcho) until the Other Thread and now cant believe i payed for your Product.I am not Broadhead Loyal,But have Spent $150-200 on yours the Last 3 Years,No more money for you from me,i will buy other Companies Broadheads from now on.But all the Best
> How much do you want for your SlickTricks ? Are the 100gr standards or 100gr magnums ? I'll take them for the right price.


----------



## KMD (Jul 3, 2012)

I think the main point of the original post was to point out that ballistic gel is a poor medium for correlating how a broadhead/arrow would penetrate a game animal.

Consider this:

You want to test out a new saw blade your company designed for cutting stainless steel. 
Along with cutting various steel samples, would you consider testing that blade on different wood??? Oak, pine, maple, hickory hedge, etc?
OF COURSE NOT.
Why?
Because that saw blade will perform differently on medium it was not designed to cut! Therefore the results of how a that blade cuts wood is IRRELEVANT to how it cuts STEEL. Makes sense, NO???

If YOU were the manufacturer of said saw blade, would you recommend that the online members of "SAWCUTTERS.COM" try your steel cutting blade on wood to "test it"???
OF COURSE NOT.
Why?
Because the results of the test are completely irrelevant!

But.....
considering this IS a free country and this IS the internet, anyone can choose do whatever the heck they want, and test whatever they want, how ever they want!
Fact of the matter is that manufacturers (such as Old hoot) are now stuck between a rock and a hard place if they attempt to share an opinion or add any input whatsoever to how their product was being tested. Any statement that can be taken wrong, WILL BE. Then the dogpile of "yeah...you suck" hater/bashers ensue and the poor guy has a mess of friggin' morons to deal with in a lose/lose situation.

This is where we are at with the whole ballistic gel/ tissue comparison!

In reality, THERE IS NO COMPARISON. They are completely different mediums that react completely different when cut. 
That said, and given the fact that there was no 'lubrication' (body fluids) present, one simply cannot correlate penetration results of an broadhead/arrow through ballistic gel to that of living tissue.

You just can't.

I think that is the main point of the original post and I don't think Seth is being 'slammed' for his hard work at all!

ANY test using ballistic gel to measure & correlate broadhead penetration performance on game is subject to the same scrutiny.

AGAIN, for the record, I also think Seth did an EXCELLENT job in maintaining a consistent and level playing field for each tested head to perform under. But the fact that the penetration results of the testing are inconclusive as to actual on game performance simply cannot be denied. Just the same as wood is not a reliable, or meaningful medium to test a saw blade designed to cut steel.

For "torture testing", I think Seth's test shed some light on broadhead durability. Excellent & very helpful in that regard!
For "cut diameter testing", the ballistic gel performed OK on visibly showing the entry hole 'footprint' of each head. But one could just as easily have pushed each broadhead through a piece of paper & measured that just as easily. Much beyond that, how far each broadhead penetrated through the gel is basically irrelevant.

If YOU, (the saw blade manufacturer) pointed out the discrepancy of testing your metal cutting saw blade on WOOD on the "SAWCUTTERS.COM FORUMS", would anyone have grounds to debate that fact?
OF COURSE NOT.

Why that is happening here makes absolutely no sense to me, whatsoever...


Keep fighting the good fight, Old hoot, sir!
I think you are doing a more than admirable job in respectfully sharing your thoughts and standing up for your products. Luckily, you have many satisfied customers standing behind you.

And keep your chin up, Seth!
Your hard work & results are still plenty useful for everyone here to interpret for themselves.


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

snoman4 said:


> Seth others have explained the limitations of ballistics gel pretty well so I wont rehash what they have said but will give you this food for thought. The biggest part of our body is made up of water and the organs are no different. The organs are also under pressure along with the muscle and skin from ligaments and tendons. Pictures of wounds tell a lot about how this works. When you look at the pictures of the animals posted in this thread the exit wounds are muck larger than the size of the broadhead. This is due to the very sharp nature of the broadheads and the tautness of the skin and muscle on real word animals along with the liquid nature of the medium being shot into, which in this case is a living breathing animal. The sharper the broad head the better its going to penetrate and damage tissue. Being in liquid will help the broadhead penetrate better period. I discounted the results of the Ulmer Head because many years of shooting animals with broadheads had taught me that sharper blades penetrate better, leave better blood trails, and do more tissue damage.


The second thing you have to remember is that when an extremely sharp broadhead is cutting through an animal and this cutting is happening it is reducing the drag that the arrow encounters as it continues penetrating. Fixed blade heads lose no energy opening the head as a mechanical head does so all the energy is available on hitting the target to start cutting and with a mechanical some of this energy is lost in "opening" the blades. The mechanical head is at a disadvantage from the start due to this energy loss when it comes to penetration. Typically 2 blade heads out penetrate, 3 blade head, which out penetrate 4 blade heads if the sharpness and blade angle is the same. This doesnt always hold true because there was a reason the smaller profile heads like the Sonics, Phatheads, Boss Bullet, ST standards and others were created. Changes in design of mechanicals have also came about to help penetration like rear deploy heads and blades that pivot around bone and such. These changes have all been done to aid flight and penetration.


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

Seth I liked your test results for the durability of the heads and the other aspects I think you did a wonderful job in that aspect of the testing. Up above you asked do the results show the cut of the broadhead in ballistics gel and the answer is no. Even though your gel was very uniform you will not get any idea of real world cut because there is no cutting of taught skin and muscle and their is not the lubrication effect either. Look at the pictures they speak a thousands words on real world performance. Those slick trick exit wounds are much larger than the the broadhead itself. A dull broadhead would never penetrate the same distance in a real world animal like a sharp one will and that is a fact. Ballistics gel is great stuff to get an idea and only an idea of what the entrance would will look like and nothing more. Ballistics gel will never give the story on the internal tissue damage or the exit wound because it does not have the lubrication effect or the tearing or opening of the wound getting bigger as the taught skin and muscles tear from an extremely sharp blade.


----------



## Roc (Jun 29, 2003)

After reading all this I think I will go buy some more Tricks. Been puttin em down for several years:thumbs_up


----------



## cunninghamww (Jun 8, 2011)

How about this...go shoot animals with different heads until you find one YOU like...then decide. I have done my own testing on heads, seen the results, and taken them with a grain of salt. As far as I am concerned, Tricks are my choice and I will be a fanboy loud and proud!


----------



## boonerbrad (Nov 30, 2006)

As with most company owners and most high profile"celebrity" hunters the internet world is a thankless and quite frankly worthless place to show your head. And here we have more proof of why very few post or show up on the internet. Funny how the very people that know the most, do the leg work,risk it all and do the field work are consistantly bashed the most on the www. I have had the privelage of meeting and getting to know several highly successful hunters and inventors in the achery industry and the one thing that always becomes crystal clear after lengthy conversations and years of knowning these individuals is they get so tired of constant bashing and others trying to tear down what they have spent a lfetime building and making for themselves. It just comes to a point where these people want to do what they do and share their succeses and experiences with those that appreciate their hard work and sacrafices for what it is without the jealous haters piling on time after time. 
It becomes real easy to see why they quit posting and walk away from trying to help on internet forums. Gary posted a polite and quite knowledgeable thread and what becomes of it? Chest thumpers show up to ruin another thread that could have been very informative for us all. 
I have bowhunted for almost 20 years and have learned the hard way most times on what equipment is all hype and what is tried and true. When i first ran across Slick Trick heads in 2004 i was skeptical as we all become thru years of new and improved equipment that turns out to be a major let down only to find a broadhead that has outperformed my wildest expectations. Gary like many businesses has had a couple bumps in the road thru manufacturing and deadlines but one thing that speaks volumes is the Tricks have thrived thru field testing and repeated other brutal tests that most broadheads simply can not stand up to. It is a design that has been copied and replicated but not improved upon. He offers the best quality all steel ferrul and custom knife grade blades known to exist and sells them at a price much less than other highly marketed heads. As hunters we should be thanking these people that actually show up and try to share their knowledge yet it seems to never happen that way on the internet. I want to thank Gary for taking the time and for having the balls to show up on here knowing full well he will be bashed by someone EVERYTIME. And thank him for his years of sacrafices building a broadhead that outperforms most everyones expectations. Keep on keeping on Gary cause the vast majority are the silent ones that love the heads you make.


----------



## tapout155 (Jan 23, 2010)

kmd said:


> i think the main point of the original post was to point out that ballistic gel is a poor medium for correlating how a broadhead/arrow would penetrate a game animal.
> 
> Consider this:
> 
> ...


x2!!!!!!


----------



## Illini (Mar 4, 2003)

There are plenty of fixed blade guys who are intrigued about the larger cutting dia. of the mechanicals. It seems every year I walk up to the line to shoot a mechanical and just never cross...I end up shooting a fixed blade. I can see pro's and con's to mechanical and fixed.... There's never going to be one head that is just right for everybody and everybody's set up and no one wants to be the test dummy who shoots a new head on an animal and doesn't get good results (or a recovery). I did that with the original punchcutter mechanical back in the late 80's. Not cool. That's why so many people are following BH tests like Seth's, which I personally thought was pretty fair. All things being equal how does one head stack up agains another. Bottom line is I tend to let the history of the broadheads and actual real life examples guide the way. Hard to argue with the ST there...Didn't seem like the OP was calling anyone out, just adding his .02 about ballistic jell. I have read the same obersvations from others about using jell as a medium. I guess the problem is if not jell then what...


----------



## Jacob Chapman (Mar 14, 2012)

Just want to thank Gary for a quality product. I had a few questions, and he personally emailed me numerous times-the next day or even sooner. He has definitely earned my business. There is something to be said for customer service, and based off my experience I haven't found any company that can hold a candle to Slick Trick. I don't hunt ballistics gel, or steel drums or plywood :moose2:


----------



## steelheadcrazy (Jul 31, 2005)

I will defend the slick trick magnum til the end, I have busted shoulder blades of deer with them in the past, cleaned them up and used them again, I dont know why the broadhead that goes thru plywood and ballistic gel the best is all of the sudden the best broadhead ever made and everybody is bashing slick tricks. I will keep buying them. I say they are the best flying, fixed blade deer killing broadhead no matter what the "test" says. unless the deer start walking around with bullet proof vests on I think I will still be able to kill them.


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

i understand all you guys are sticking up for your broadhead as this is clearly a slick trick shooter only thread, i havent once said a bad thing yet about anybody's broadhead. i will wait for the hoot to answer the questions i asked hiim...i dont really want advice i just simply want his input


----------



## snoman4 (Jul 1, 2011)

sethro02 said:


> i understand all you guys are sticking up for your broadhead as this is clearly a slick trick shooter only thread, i havent once said a bad thing yet about anybody's broadhead. i will wait for the hoot to answer the questions i asked hiim...i dont really want advice i just simply want his input


Seth I shoot razortricks and also phatheads..out of the two I prefer the phatheads because they are stronger. I enjoyed your thread and posted in it several times about the testing I think you did a great job with and have not bashed your testing. I agree with Oldhoot in his reasoning for posting this thread that is all. As I said earlier your thread and testing were great for showing durability which is first and foremost what I look for in a head along with great flight. I just take any testing on anything other than live animals with a grain of salt because there is not a medium that I know of that can duplicate real life conditions found in an animal.


----------



## Michael Myers (Nov 13, 2008)

chesnut oak said:


> GrizzlyMan1980 said:
> 
> 
> > You make a Great Broadhead and i commend you for that,However,If i were you i would hire a Salesmen,I Didnt know who you were(Slick Trick Head Honcho) until the Other Thread and now cant believe i payed for your Product.I am not Broadhead Loyal,But have Spent $150-200 on yours the Last 3 Years,No more money for you from me,i will buy other Companies Broadheads from now on.But all the Best
> ...


----------



## Michael Myers (Nov 13, 2008)

brownback said:


> Nope, believe your arrow flies a little crooked friend:wink: wait a minute let me do it one more time :wink: there we go. Funny how you never really had a problem with this thread until you found out he was the owner. I guess he shouldn't have an opinion correct? Keep tuning you'll get it straight!


Like i said,Dont care what you think about my opinion,Really hope you have a Great Fall huntin season,My arrows fly straight and Hope yours do this Fall,I Use which ever broadhead i like,Hope you do the Same,You can keep tryin to Dissect what i said,Means nothing either way to me,But it seems to bother you,Oh well,Like i said Good Huntin,Grizz


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

Slick Tricks are an excellent broadhead!!!!!!!!!

OldHoot misses the mark not the broadheads. Hooter underestimates others abilities to reason. The heads speak for themselves.


----------



## Michael Myers (Nov 13, 2008)

V-TRAIN said:


> i kind of did the opposite. better stock up on bleeder blades cause they will be toast after every shot. loving the magnum.


I Never Once have insulted a Slick Trick Broadhead so I am happy you like them as well,I Shoot all types of Different Broadheads.Grizz


----------



## tjmitchell (Jul 8, 2006)

Open mouth,insert foot.You have convinced me to never try st . By the way i am very impartial cause my tried and true spitfires didnt do so well.Dan Evans has already got my bh money and confidence for this season.I hate arrogance and old hootowl if you didnt insult Seth its not because you didnt try.


----------



## NCDon (Feb 17, 2010)

This will be my first year shooting Slick Tricks. I changedd from WASP SSTs. I'll let your product do the talking. That's about all we can do as consumers. I seriously doubt my arrow will bounce off a deer.


----------



## 0nepin (Sep 16, 2009)

GrizzlyMan1980 said:


> Man i was a Huge Slick Trick guy for Years...Now i will try Steelforce for Fixed....Good Luck and All the Best,Grizz


I shot them for years and now I done with them as aswell.they are good head even if they sound like a deer whistle.oldcootowl you ever get any more of my$$$$$


----------



## chaded (Jan 15, 2011)

This thread is cracking me up. Just hang on for a little bit longer guys and deer season will be here.


----------



## Sneaky Apasum (Jul 11, 2006)

tjmitchell said:


> Open mouth,insert foot.You have convinced me to never try st . By the way i am very impartial cause my tried and true spitfires didnt do so well.Dan Evans has already got my bh money and confidence for this season.I hate arrogance and old hootowl if you didnt insult Seth its not because you didnt try.


How did he insult him? How was he arrogant? HOW?! Explain yourself!


----------



## tapout155 (Jan 23, 2010)

Good god this palce is full of sissys. So oldhootowl gets on here and judt explains testing and how/or why ballistic gel isnt the best for broadhead testing (which we all know it isnt) and a bunch of guys cry and say "you'll never get my money again" Do you guys realize how much of a bunch of *****es you sound like.


----------



## V-TRAIN (Feb 27, 2009)

GrizzlyMan1980 said:


> I Never Once have insulted a Slick Trick Broadhead so I am happy you like them as well,I Shoot all types of Different Broadheads.Grizz


oh, i wasn't talking junk like some people in this thread. i was just saying that i (and my wife also) shot steelforce heads for several years.
the phat heads are good heads, i just got kind of ticked how everytime the wife (was only shooting 44 lbs.) and i shot them the bleeder blades bent.
i mean everytime. the main blade is stout as heck, but those bleeders are not. i tried several of their heads (sabertooth and the big old school looking ones), they will all kill deer no doubt. i was just saying i kind of did the opposite as you tried steelforce, then tricks, that was all. i only talk smack in pm's cause you never know how people take it.
i ain't trying to rub anybody the wrong way. lol


----------



## Ghost23 (Jul 15, 2011)

Gel is not a good media to test a broadhead to compare what it would do to an animal. You don't have to cut the gel to penetrate. Broadheads are meant to cut cleanly. You need the KE and momentum from your arrow for the broadhead to perform it's intended job of cutting. Penetration just comes with it. The dull broadheads out penetrating the sharper ones in the gel test can not be compared to an animal. You want to cleanly cut the animal with a sharp head. What if the shot placement was off and glanced the vitals? Wouldn't you want a sharp head, not something that penetrated deeper in gel? I would want the sharp head so I know that it will make a cut and bleed. A dull head might glance off. 

Some of you might know that lungs have the consistency of watermelon, the red part. So why not set up the test media as best you can to replicate an animal? Maybe layer something together, instead of just using gel. Something to replicate hide/Gel/Watermelon/Gel/Something to replicate hide, throw in some plywood, hard plastic, whatever to replicate bone. Maybe throw some baggies of red colored fluid between the gel and watermelon to get a bleeding effect. Have a backstop target on the other side of this media to see the arrow penetration. If it penetrated the media well, it will penetrate a the target well. If it did not penetrate the animal media well, it will not penetrate the target well. This might be pricey and only get one shot with the media, but it is more realistic.


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

It seems to be obvious that ballistic gel isn't good for testing broadheads so what is a good medium to test broadhead penetration. Besides live deer what can you use to replicate a shoulder hit. What if everybody kept the scapula from their deer and sent them to somebody willing to do a test? 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

Well, this thread has been so amazingly hijacked over 2 sentences its unbelievable. But at least some people get it such as Ghost and lots of others.

KMD, in particular, let me thank you tons for saving me a ton of typing trying to explain that you don't assume that any test medium
works like you want it to. When you do a test you are not only testing products, but you are also testing the test medium. In this case with the gel the results proved it wasn't a good medium to test penetration. And thats a compliment to Seths test. He could have ignored posting the results of a dull head but to his credit he didn't. These kind of results tell you whether the test is valid or not,
as others have pointed out.

As to somebody asking me if my heads had of been a top performer would I still critique gel the same way. Well, this isn't breaking news, I have said for years gel isn't a good test medium because it give bogus results from what heads do on animals. Testing in the past has shown large diameter mechs outpenetrating small 3 blade heads. Doesn't happen on animals. And I think even the folks shooting large mechs will mostly admit that also.

So would I critique my the test if my head was a top performer? Yes. Now I suppose some are automatically saying I wouldn't.
Well, those who know me well would tell you I work to be honest and fair and balanced. Is that good enough for you?

Didn't think so. But we can demonstrate that easily enough. I don't read most tests because its just frustrating when the validity and reliability could be better, or at least an explanation for what is really happening. However many pages Seths test is I didn't read it until I was on another forum and a guy said he had a broadhead spread sheet and I clicked on it and it was this test. So I scanned a bit of it and a few of the heads, mostly curious about the durability, and as I already have said found it interesting.

So then I went on the test thread and expressed my view. Didn't see any harm in it, somebody critiques your head, wouldn't it only
be fair and balanced to in turn critique the test medium? For folks accusing me of "bashing", I haven't accused Seth of "bashing". He gave his view and I gave my view. Shouldn't be any problem there.

As to my own heads, well, the Grizztrick 1 was a top performer. And guess what I did? I told people that wasn't right, that a 1 1/4" 4 blade head wouldn't outpenetrate the Standard or Vipertrick. Now, if the Grizz was anybody elses head, some on this thread would be all over me because I "bashed" company X Grizz broadhead. IT WAS MY OWN. See how that works? I simply told the truth regardless of whose head it was.

As to Seths questions, forget what they were exactly, one was I believe about hole size and gel, and I believe somebody else already gave the same answer as mine. Thing is, I simply said gel wasn't a good test medium if you carefully analyze the results. I believe above Seth said the only reason he used gel was he had to use something to stop the broadheads. I hope I recall that correctly, God knows I would hate to mess up and give anybody some real ammunition. Point is it doesn't sound like he has a very high opinion saying that of testing penetration with gel either. Sounded to me like we agreed to agree. Don't see why I'm being attacked.

Anyway, on vacation, gonna try to catch a fish, will get back on in a few days and take another beating if anybody still has some
testosterone to wear off.

In the meantime, not to risk getting this thread back on topic, but would enjoy hearing if anybody else would have thought twice before
shooting a record Grizz close enough you could spit on him and he could have you for lunch with one hop. Gotta ask Gus if his wife had any comments about that.

Have fun until I'm back, I know you will.


----------



## 0nepin (Sep 16, 2009)

My thought on slicktrick.great fixed head .cuts very well ,flys very well ,they do have some nosie in flite .they are tough .they did well in sethro test .the owner is rather arrogant .I do think every body knows that gel does not react like flesh but it does a good job showing the cut.my son is either going to hunt with slicktrick or grave diggers this season or shuttle ts.I'm am concerned about the in flite nosie from the slicktricks .


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

guess i'll wait til your back from vacation to talk....


----------



## Obi-wanShinobi (Nov 6, 2008)

Awesome head the ST's are. The doe I shot last season had a small entry and exit hole but left a huge blood trail I found her dead 30 yards from the shot in the dark. I think Seth's test was fair for what it was intended. On a perfect shot any broadhead will kill and get a passthrough IMO. The test gives hunters an idea of what might happen on a less than perfect shot and I applaud Seth for his work.


----------



## S.F. steve (Mar 1, 2010)

based on what i have read in the xbow section i'm going with slick trick standards. people far more expierienced then i am love slick tricks. i don't quite understand the pissing match between slick tricks owner and some of you but everyone seem's to agree that slick tricks are a great head. that's all i need to know. it is nice to see a owner of a archery business on the forum.


----------



## 0nepin (Sep 16, 2009)

I really think someone should do more testing on arrow noise.I can really hear the trick coming when I'm down range, and I can't see how a deer would not react to the noise.


----------



## BOW BUM (Jul 31, 2009)

Great job guys! Real nice way to mess up a thread.

All the haters should mark this thread, then read it next year. If you have any integrity, you'll feel like asses.

Old Hoot, Thanks for trying.

Brian


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

I completely understand the gel not being a good test medium so could someone tell me what would be a good test medium. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## lOnEwOlF110 (Dec 7, 2004)

0nepin said:


> I really think someone should do more testing on arrow noise.I can really hear the trick coming when I'm down range, and I can't see how a deer would not react to the noise.


+1 might as well blow a whistle lol


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

ntymadater...i dont think anyone can answer that...like the post sais, real animals is a test?! even if gel was a bad choice of "penetration medium" then all heads were equally shot into a bad medium which still makes it a fair test....IMO


----------



## tntom (Sep 19, 2008)

deerhunter3241 said:


> Lot of animals killed with slicktricks in the past years, but not what I'm personally looking for in a broadhead. To comment on this thread "OLDHOOTOWL" is digging a grave here. The very first post claims that all b-head testers are biased. Well how much more biased can you be than working for (or owning if that's the case) the broadhead company you are putting test up about. C'mon man you had to see this coming when you posted here pointing out flaws in the average hunters tests...! I'd stop now if I were you cause you are losing a lot of business...!


Sorry but you are wrong OLDHOOTOWL did not say "ALL" b-head testers are biased. You need to read the first post again.

And GrizzlyMan sold his Tricks 2 weeks before this thread was even thought about and now he's done with Tricks even though he likes them a lot.

I just don't see what OLDHOOTOWL did to hurt you guys feelings so bad. And I for sure haven't read where he seemed arrogant in the least.


----------



## Jerry/NJ (Jan 17, 2003)

0nepin said:


> My thought on slicktrick.great fixed head .cuts very well ,flys very well ,they do have some nosie in flite .they are tough .they did well in sethro test .the owner is rather arrogant .I do think every body knows that gel does not react like flesh but it does a good job showing the cut.my son is either going to hunt with slicktrick or grave diggers this season or shuttle ts.*I'm am concerned about the in flite nosie from the slicktricks *.


I've been shooting Slick Tricks since Gary came out with them years ago, killed everything from a ground hog to elk, been shooting them at 390 fps lately from a SZ380 crossbow and no noise for me (ever), so I am puzzled what noise you speak of. :dontknow:


----------



## BMG (Aug 1, 2008)

wow, the similarities to those who were protesting Chick-Fil-A a week ago and those who are protesting SlickTricks is quite apparent


----------



## chaded (Jan 15, 2011)

BMG said:


> wow, the similarities to those who were protesting Chick-Fil-A a week ago and those who are protesting SlickTricks is quite apparent


Lol I must of missed that thread. Good grief.


----------



## razortec 0001 (Aug 15, 2004)

BMG said:


> wow, the similarities to those who were protesting Chick-Fil-A a week ago and those who are protesting SlickTricks is quite apparent


Are you saying Gary is Gay?


----------



## chaded (Jan 15, 2011)

Umm if they were protesting Chick-Fil-A and Gary or Slick Trick is being compared to Chick-Fil-A then I can only assume that he would not be gay considering Chick-Fil-A stands against being gay. On another note, only on ArcheryTalk can a thread turn into something like this. LOL


----------



## Schlep (Jun 17, 2011)

I didnt read the entire thread but I do understand why some heads perform better then others in gel....heads with less blade surface area will penetrate more in gel due to the fact they have less resistance. Gel ...like most rubber products has a high surface resistance...much much more then flesh. So the test using gel tells you nothing when comparing heads with different surface areas...unless you are hunting rubber deer. 
Flesh with no bone would be the best test.


----------



## BMG (Aug 1, 2008)

razortec 0001 said:


> Are you saying Gary is Gay?


No.


----------



## 12bhunting (Sep 9, 2009)

Look man I have over 20 grizz tricks, 12 standards, 6 magnums, 3 razor tricks & 8 magnums. I like tricks and plan on using them this year as well. But if you cannot hear the difference in flight noise you need a good check up. 



Jerry/NJ said:


> I've been shooting Slick Tricks since Gary came out with them years ago, killed everything from a ground hog to elk, been shooting them at 390 fps lately from a SZ380 crossbow and no noise for me (ever), so I am puzzled what noise you speak of. :dontknow:


----------



## Jerry/NJ (Jan 17, 2003)

12bhunting said:


> Look man I have over 20 grizz tricks, 12 standards, 6 magnums, 3 razor tricks & 8 magnums. I like tricks and plan on using them this year as well. But if you cannot hear the difference in flight noise you need a good check up.


Look man, how about I do an audio/video test of 5 broadheads and you tell me which one is the Slick Trick? Want to wager all your ST's?


----------



## weekender7 (Nov 1, 2011)

*


OLDHOOTOWL said:



In the meantime, not to risk getting this thread back on topic, but would enjoy hearing if anybody else would have thought twice before
shooting a record Grizz close enough you could spit on him and he could have you for lunch with one hop. Have fun until I'm back, I know you will.

Click to expand...

*since you asked, brown bear at 20 yds when I shot through both lungs then 10' (easy spitting distance) when the guide had to do his job with 3 rounds from a .338 to keep him off us. Note to self: these bears can and will charge under certain circumstances even after a fatal arrow hit, be prepared for the worst before you shoot, have enough soft paper to clean up afterward.










inland grizzly was at 30 yds when I shot in the chest and luckily it went the other way










I had told my inland grizzly guide he could only shoot if the bear was chewing on me, THAT WAS A MISTAKE, one I won't make again if I ever get to hunt big bears again.


----------



## UTGrad (Jan 21, 2009)

Who cares about flight noise?? Unless the arrow as a siren on it like a Ju87 Stuka dive bomber that might make a difference. JMO...bring on the hate posts lol


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

utgrad you are on my ignore list but for some reason i always click to view your post.....sux


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

and btw im biting my tongue on your flight noise comment. i'll just enjoy your posts on other peoples threads!


----------



## UTGrad (Jan 21, 2009)

Hey Seth like I said before you seem like a nice guy. I'm really not a jerk and you and I share a passion for broadheads and bowhunting. Best of luck this season. I look forward to see some deer pics! Here is the one I'm after. Note my stand in the back ground


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

nice i'll have to post my shooters in a different thread


----------



## sawtoothscream (Apr 19, 2008)

hmmm, going to try that olive oil trick with my razor. thanks.


----------



## Fortyneck (Oct 8, 2010)

Jerry/NJ said:


> Look man, how about I do an audio/video test of 5 broadheads and you tell me which one is the Slick Trick? Want to wager all your ST's?


I saw someone post a video link to a test with a mic on the target, with a Slick Trick vs a field point, and I could not hear a difference.


----------



## JC-XT (Feb 3, 2007)

I'm still not sure why some of you guys get so ramped up over a broadhead. Especially when you consider that 90% of the fixed blade broadheads on the market work about 95% equal to one another. Shoot what makes you happy, but I'd recommend saving your fanboyism and bashing for more important stuff like tv hunters and high fences. :teeth:


----------



## Fortyneck (Oct 8, 2010)

Hey Seth, since it seems like you want to talk about your test on this thread too, maybe you can answer this, without all the real deal clique jumping down my throat. I think AT would love to understood why you measured the "total cut" the way you did. Your way, a 2 blade BH with a 0.5" diameter, that was 3" long would be considered a 6" "total cut" BH, even though it would only make a 0.5" wide hole. Why did you resist the many requests to list the true total cut #'s; how many inches of tissue were actually transected by the blades of the BH?


----------



## NorthernMN (Aug 19, 2005)

Well, I see the Internet hasn't changed. I sure hope season gets here soon.


----------



## 12bhunting (Sep 9, 2009)

Look Jerry from NJ my wife who does not hunt can tell the difference from 20 feet away. And I will wager any amount you want to throw on it. I shoot muzzy and slicks every day and there is a big sound difference. If you cannot hear a difference you are deaf. The deer I have killed with slicks do not seem to care though.


----------



## 05cummins (Feb 23, 2012)

very informative


----------



## 0nepin (Sep 16, 2009)

Jerry/NJ said:


> Look man, how about I do an audio/video test of 5 broadheads and you tell me which one is the Slick Trick? Want to wager all your ST's?


I would wager what ever you got, because it would be mine.the only head i can think of louder that trick is the g5 small game head.


----------



## BAMBI KILER (Jun 24, 2007)

*razor trick*

:wink:


----------



## markman (Apr 14, 2007)

OLDHOOTOWL said:


> Well, this thread has been so amazingly hijacked over 2 sentences its unbelievable. But at least some people get it such as Ghost and lots of others.
> 
> KMD, in particular, let me thank you tons for saving me a ton of typing trying to explain that you don't assume that any test medium
> works like you want it to. When you do a test you are not only testing products, but you are also testing the test medium. In this case with the gel the results proved it wasn't a good medium to test penetration. And thats a compliment to Seths test. He could have ignored posting the results of a dull head but to his credit he didn't. These kind of results tell you whether the test is valid or not,
> ...


Gary, get back from vacation and start making those Deep Six compatable Slick tricks!!!!!LOL!!!!


----------



## xcal1ber (Sep 4, 2011)

Nothing wrong with Seth's test. Even if ballistics gel isnt a good medium, it doesn't matter because all the heads are going through the same test. Makes no sense to cry over Slick Tricks anyways.... Because Muzzy is the best


----------



## whack n stack (Dec 23, 2007)

deerhunter3241 said:


> Lot of animals killed with slicktricks in the past years, but not what I'm personally looking for in a broadhead. To comment on this thread "OLDHOOTOWL" is digging a grave here. The very first post claims that all b-head testers are biased. Well how much more biased can you be than working for (or owning if that's the case) the broadhead company you are putting test up about. C'mon man you had to see this coming when you posted here pointing out flaws in the average hunters tests...! I'd stop now if I were you cause you are losing a lot of business...!


He's not loosing my business!! I don't get why people can't take straight talk anymore. This passive aggressive generation cannot hear straight talk. 

If you've used his products you'd know of what he is speaking about.


----------



## whack n stack (Dec 23, 2007)

0nepin said:


> I really think someone should do more testing on arrow noise.I can really hear the trick coming when I'm down range, and I can't see how a deer would not react to the noise.


lol..every deer I've shot with a Trick stood there and took it like a man! Never heard it coming at 300 plus fps.


----------



## chevman (Nov 3, 2006)

Cant believe this thread. Another test was done..another test done without using actual animals ( not practical) soooo...another test that cant be taken seriously, period. Someone points this out to the hunting community and so happens to manufacture a broadhead himself. As usual the At crowd takes this information (meant for thier benefit) the wroung way. Those of you that have used st and now say you are not...Fine...go try something else with your childish attitudes, but when they let you down, dont say he didnt warn you. He didnt bash... he didnt say his are better.. he just meant that these bh tests dont prove nothing unless they use animals to test on and i agree. To many variables. Keep up the good work Gary.


----------



## Rowdy25 (Jan 17, 2010)

Went from expandables to Slick Tricks. Flew like field points. Sold.


----------



## whack n stack (Dec 23, 2007)

chevman said:


> Cant believe this thread. Another test was done..another test done without using actual animals ( not practical) soooo...another test that cant be taken seriously, period. Someone points this out to the hunting community and so happens to manufacture a broadhead himself. As usual the At crowd takes this information (meant for thier benefit) the wroung way. Those of you that have used st and now say you are not...Fine...go try something else with your childish attitudes, but when they let you down, dont say he didnt warn you. He didnt bash... he didnt say his are better.. he just meant that these bh tests dont prove nothing unless they use animals to test on and i agree. To many variables. Keep up the good work Gary.


I'm with you bro!!!


----------



## whack&stack (Oct 15, 2007)

i am gonna test st mags next week my way lol its not an official test and wont say it indicates how they work on a animal but it will be cool. i will post video.


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

Why start a thread and then not stick around to answer questions and debate? I would still like to know what a feasible test medium would be. Btw i shoot razortricks and have shot st magnums in the past with no complaints 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

0nepin said:


> I really think someone should do more testing on arrow noise.I can really hear the trick coming when I'm down range, and I can't see how a deer would not react to the noise.


I tested the noise down range and penetration of these heads. Seems they have worked on all my tests. 100grn magnums!
Im trying my best to get the arrows to stick in the game and not pass through. In my test I cannot get one to stick. My bow is slow compared to todays stndard as well. Elite Z28 at 63lbs, 260fps

My test results have been all good! Thanks to Gary for building great broad heads that cut, very sharp as any head on the market, accurate and tough. 

Im not changing and have no reason to change!

DB


----------



## BOWCHIEF (Oct 6, 2006)

In my test the GT2 performed admirably. Out of a 60# bow shot this buck thru the shoulder blade, lung, heart AND stuck out the bottom/exit hole. Single lung and heart, buck went full bore 40 or 50 yards and crashed in the cattails. Why get all worked up about all these "test" when you can just use ACTUAL results.


----------



## BOWCHIEF (Oct 6, 2006)

My original GT test was also note worthy. It blew thru this this 5 1/2 yo 10 ptr out of my 60# bow, double lung. He only made it 30 yards before crashing in the cattails and I wished he'd gone farther because he was headed for my truck. Hard to argue with actual results...


----------



## dblungem (Dec 2, 2008)

0nepin said:


> I really think someone should do more testing on arrow noise.I can really hear the trick coming when I'm down range, and I can't see how a deer would not react to the noise.


i have been using tricks since the first year he started selling them and i have NEVER had a deer duck my arrow.


----------



## elkman406 (Feb 22, 2008)

NTYMADATER said:


> Why start a thread and then not stick around to answer questions and debate? I would still like to know what a feasible test medium would be. Btw i shoot razortricks and have shot st magnums in the past with no complaints
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


There are none...except real world testing producing anecdotal results.

When your testing yields that the clear sky is red instead of blue, one make the point that the test criteria might not correlate with real life. Large broadheads out penetrating small ones of equal or greater sharpness elicits a similar response.


----------



## Daniel Boone (May 31, 2002)

dblungem said:


> i have been using tricks since the first year he started selling them and i have NEVER had a deer duck my arrow.


I'm here allot. I have yet to read all the threads where deer are ducking these heads due to noise. Wished the one deer I shot low this year would have ducked at 33yrds. 
DB


----------



## brokenlittleman (Oct 18, 2006)

Here is a good sized Nebraska shot into the shoulder and exited out the bottom with a magnum. Nothing special with the bow 63lb Hoyt Vectrix XL. He ended up going about 40 yards before falling over but never got out of sight. Picked up the arrow, replaced the blades and it was good to go.


----------



## chevman (Nov 3, 2006)

Now these are test results guys! Why wouldnt you want to use something that you CAN depend on?


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

elkman406 said:


> There are none...except real world testing producing anecdotal results.
> 
> When your testing yields that the clear sky is red instead of blue, one make the point that the test criteria might not correlate with real life. Large broadheads out penetrating small ones of equal or greater sharpness elicits a similar response.


So if a test produces results different than your hypothesis it makes your results invalid. I don't think that's how it works. Given that ballistics gel isn't the perfect test medium it is the most viable option that can be repeated. Perhaps the blade angle hindered the penetration. No test is perfect but i don't think seths test results can be discounted because a certain head didn't perform as expected. Is seths test the end all broadhead test absolutely not but it is a start. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## strikerII (Feb 1, 2004)

I've been a cop 30 years and firearms instructor 26 of those years. Bowhunting 38 years now. I have been involved in alot of testing with weapons/rounds and know ballistic gel is made for bullet testing; it represents cavitation and expansion which is necessary in bullet performance. Bullets kill buy the trauma of expansion and shock to the body. Broadheads/sharp blades kill by cutting, in our case, cutting major arteries and therefore depleting the brain of oxygenated blood. That is how an animal hit by a broadhead dies, not blunt shock/trauma (unless spine hit). Best way to test a broadhead, as cruel as it sounds, is on living animals. 
Yes, I do shoot ST's and have spoken to Gary many times and bought heads from him since 2005. But I shoot what works. There are many good broadheads on the market. The most important aspect of archery is putting the arrow in the right place. Like gunhunters say, "You can hit a deer in the ass with a .458 Magnum and he won't be any deader that if you hit him with a .22". Shot placement is the most crucial factor. Put any arrow/broadhead thru the lungs and that animal will die, some just quicker than others.
Just like statistics, depends how you figure it. Any testing will have varied results, whether how it is conducted, who performs it, etc...
Bottom line is, as a consumer, shoot what you are the most accurate with and have confidence in. Ask any professional guide, they would rather have a client in camp who can accurately shoot his trusty old .308 bolt than a new wildcat cartridge that kicks like a mule and causes the shooter to flinch. We don't have to reinvent the wheel, if Brand X broadhead flies true for you and kills efficiently and you have confidence in it, use it. Don't worry about anyone's testing or how that head performed. I've seen and conducted enough of those tests overs the years to know that.


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

ill keep waiting for the st master to speak....


----------



## OLDHOOTOWL (Feb 9, 2003)

I'm back early, tested a prototype bass bait, showed promise. This thread was so hijacked I'm just going to let it rest.
If I'm a big criminal for saying for years that gel is a bad test medium because of what independent testers have disclosed for years,
then I'm just a big criminal. Give me the chair, would get a real buzz out of it.

Not gay, hope that didn't disappoint anybody.

Weekender, thank you for that, and my hats off to you, that would have to take some big ones, and I would be considering I might
lose mine.

At least this thread gave folks some testosterone to work off waiting for season, whatever you shoot hope you score a WR,
and appreciate the support. If you have a serious question email me [email protected] and will get back to you, Thanks Gary


----------



## Michael Myers (Nov 13, 2008)

tntom said:


> Sorry but you are wrong OLDHOOTOWL did not say "ALL" b-head testers are biased. You need to read the first post again.
> 
> And GrizzlyMan sold his Tricks 2 weeks before this thread was even thought about and now he's done with Tricks even though he likes them a lot.
> 
> I just don't see what OLDHOOTOWL did to hurt you guys feelings so bad. And I for sure haven't read where he seemed arrogant in the least.


Yes i like to try all different types of Broadheads,I aint loyal to any what so ever,I Can choose to buy and Sell broadheads as i like,Good Huntin,Grizz


----------



## elkman406 (Feb 22, 2008)

NTYMADATER said:


> So if a test produces results different than your hypothesis it makes your results invalid. I don't think that's how it works. Given that ballistics gel isn't the perfect test medium it is the most viable option that can be repeated. Perhaps the blade angle hindered the penetration. No test is perfect but i don't think seths test results can be discounted because a certain head didn't perform as expected. Is seths test the end all broadhead test absolutely not but it is a start.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


I never said invalid.

Reread my 1st post.

If you really think that a large dia 2-2.5" diameter head is going to penetrate as far going thru dirty hide, meat, bone, organs, repeat than a 1.125-1.25" head of similar or better sharpeness, more power to you.


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

elkman406 said:


> I never said invalid.
> 
> Reread my 1st post.
> 
> If you really think that a large dia 2-2.5" diameter head is going to penetrate as far going thru dirty hide, meat, bone, organs, repeat than a 1.125-1.25" head of similar or better sharpeness, more power to you.


I absolutely do not believe that will happen and sethros test doesn't show that either. The fixed heads dominated so how in the world did you come up with the above conclusion. 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## 206Moose (Apr 29, 2007)

elkman406 said:


> I never said invalid.
> 
> Reread my 1st post.
> 
> If you really think that a large dia 2-2.5" diameter head is going to penetrate as far going thru dirty hide, meat, bone, organs, repeat than a 1.125-1.25" head of similar or better sharpeness, more power to you.


I absolutely do not believe that will happen and sethros test doesn't show that either. The fixed heads dominated so how in the world did you come up with the above conclusion? 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ozarksbuckslaye (Jul 24, 2008)

Someone should do a poll on AT and ask the good people of this site what they think the best broadhead is. Scratch that, it has been done multiple times already.


----------



## Fortyneck (Oct 8, 2010)

NTYMADATER said:


> I absolutely do not believe that will happen and sethros test doesn't show that either. The fixed heads dominated so how in the world did you come up with the above conclusion?
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


Lol, you need to go back and study the results of the test, because it really did show this, and I don't think elkman mentioned expandables vs. fixed either.

What I believe elkman might be referring to, to site one example of physics gone awry, is how the grizztrick 1, a 4-blade fixed, with a true total cut of 2.5"(1.25" dia.), out 

penetrated the standard, a 4-blade fixed, with a true total cut of 2" (1" dia.) :confused3:


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

^^^^^^easy, bigger ferrule busted bigger hole for blades to go through IMO...


----------



## sethro02 (Jul 5, 2008)

I think this thread should have been called "slick trick kill thread"


----------

