# Mechanical Broadheads and Traditional Bows????



## sir buckwheat (Mar 21, 2007)

I'm sure theres a simple answer to this I just haven't thought to ask it of my traditional archery friends. I've always wondered why no one uses mechanical broadheads with recurves or longbows. I realize if you use wood arrows they don't make them that are glue-on. But what about those who use carbon or aluminum arrows??? Is it due to the speed? Or do you feel it is getting too far away from the "Traditional" aspect of it?

I'm new to the whole traditonal thing, so I'm getting everything figured out.


----------



## trapperDave (Mar 12, 2005)

trad bows do not have the speed to make them effective. And honestly they suck on less than perfect hits regardless of the bow used to deliver them.


----------



## rraming (Aug 5, 2006)

It does not work or else people would be using them - cut on impact is best bet for penetration and death to critters - I believe it would reduce speed and penetration


----------



## sir buckwheat (Mar 21, 2007)

trapperDave said:


> trad bows do not have the speed to make them effective. And honestly they suck on less than perfect hits regardless of the bow used to deliver them.


I've been shooting them out of my compound for years with great results. I wondered it they didn't open well with the slower speeds of the traditional setups.


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

Mechanical Broadheads are a very BIG no-no with traditional Equipment.

The amount of KE that a traditional bow has compared to a compound is much different. It takes about 5 KE away from your shot using a mechanical.

mechanicals are wonderful for compounds...
Cut on Contacts are wonderful for traditionals.


Dwayne


----------



## sir buckwheat (Mar 21, 2007)

DwayneR said:


> Mechanical Broadheads are a very BIG no-no with traditional Equipment.
> 
> The amount of KE that a traditional bow has compared to a compound is much different. It takes about 5 KE away from your shot using a mechanical.
> 
> ...


I knew it was a simple answer... Thanks!:shade:


----------



## RCL (Apr 23, 2004)

Think of it this way......you have to push an inch+ of blunt aluminum through the hide before you even get to the blades........:nono:
I don't even like them for my compound......I use a Magnus Stinger.


----------



## Double Tee (Jan 16, 2009)

Go to 3-rivers website and look thru the how to videos and there's a good answer there as to why they shouldn't be used! Mr.Karch pushes a cut on contact VS. others thruogh a piece of leather and its self evident!


----------



## sir buckwheat (Mar 21, 2007)

I understand the problems with KE on traditionals, but as far as compounds go I wouln't use anything else. I've seen the Entrance and Exit wounds on all of my animals. No gimiks there, just big freaking holes...and short blood trails.

I used to use Magnus stingers for my compound and will probably go back to them for my longbow. I had good results with them.


----------



## I'm Not Ted (Feb 12, 2009)

I never realized you couldn't use mechanical Bheads on Trad Equipment. Guess you learn something everyday.


----------



## Jack NZ (Apr 7, 2006)

I'm Not Ted said:


> I never realized you couldn't use mechanical Bheads on Trad Equipment. Guess you learn something everyday.


You can use them.
It's just another trad old wives tale that you can't.
Anybody that thinks a modern Mech' shot from a 65-70lb string bow at the usual stringbow ranges won't work,,,,is dreaming.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

IMO...mechanical broadheads are not the greatest choice...but they can effectively kill a deer...even with a trad bow. You just won't get as much penetration as you could with a good cut on contact broadhead.

IMO...one of the primary reasons they were designed is due to the lack of know how some bowhunters have regarding how to tune their equipment effectively.

Ray


----------



## RCL (Apr 23, 2004)

BLACK WOLF said:


> IMO...one of the primary reasons they were designed is due to the lack of know how some bowhunters have regarding how to tune their equipment effectively.


Or lack of desire........:wink:


----------



## Ybuck (Apr 21, 2007)

I did use the RM Snyper(slip-cam design) mechanical last spring from my recurve to harvest a gobbler. The head worked terific on the quartering away shot angle. 
With that said, ive since learned by talking with more experienced trad shooters, that a cut on contact head would be far superior.
I consider myself fortunate on that bird, and will be using the Magnus head this spring.
Personaly i would'nt use a mech. head from my recurve on deer. The compound? Absolutly.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

BLACK WOLF said:


> IMO...mechanical broadheads are not the greatest choice...but they can effectively kill a deer...even with a trad bow. You just won't get as much penetration as you could with a good cut on contact broadhead.
> 
> IMO...one of the primary reasons they were designed is due to the lack of know how some bowhunters have regarding how to tune their equipment effectively.
> 
> Ray


Dito.


----------



## Tajue17 (Aug 18, 2005)

if you rent or watch "how to shoot instinctively better than ever #1" you'll see Dan Bertalan shoot the Michigan opener buck using a mechanical Broadhead (looks like a spitfire) and he shot a 58# pittsley preditor at the time,,, now thats for the people who say it cannot be done.. 

with that being said I personally would never use them from any trad bow on any animal,,,, I think we have too good of a selection of very decent broadheads to even bother with them PLUS our bows usually don't have the super high speed that effects fixed blade broadheads in flight other than some of them whistling in flight. 

as far as Dan Bertalan using them I never saw or heard of any other time he used them again.


----------



## ravensgait (Sep 23, 2006)

A friend of mine asked me the same question last year. So I picked up some 2 Blade rage BHs and played around with them. They shoot great and seem to penetrate very well. Shot them into half inch plywood, 2X4, dirt, foam targets and even put one through 3/4 " ply and the metal sheeting of the Indoor lol hey it was an accident I swear..

The bow I used was a hybrid pulling a little over 60# at my draw. Arrows were carbons, a bit light some where around 500gns I even used some real light weights of just over 400 grains. The BHs performed well no matter what I did to them. I should mention that the bow I used smokes an arrow, it has been chono'd at a good bit over 200fps with a lighter arrows

The only modification I made to the Rage's was to sharpen the leading blade of each head. they are not very sharp out of the package.

Now how other heads would do I don't know and I don't know how well these would work out of a lighter weight bow. But if you're interested buy a pack of them and test them out before hunting with them..Randy


----------



## red44 (Apr 11, 2005)

If somebody told me I HAD to use one, I'd grab a Snyper first, then a Steelhead. I really think either one would do fine so long as you were shooting 50lbs or better. I don't think you'd blowing holes through shoulders, but keep it behind and you'd be OK. Expandables would not be my first choice though...


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

*Ok,lets sum it up for the people...*

1. No one says you *can't* use one.
2. No one says it will *not* work.

But the facts are....

1. It takes more energy to open a mechanical broadhead and start doing damage, than a cut on contact Broadhead.

2. Traditional bows are less powerful than their counterparts.

3. Robbing energy away from a bow that is already less superior than its counter part, decreases the penetration power. That is exactly what a mechanical broadhead does.

4. I am sure, without a doubt that we all want to make the best kill possible with the highest rate of success, and the least amount of risk. That means one thing with traditional bows.... Cut on Contact, period.

5. Compounds have excessive amount of energy, thus (unless it is a very low poundage compound) most all compounds have enough excessive energy to open mechancals and blow right through any deer around. Sometimes right through the shoulder blade.

What does this all mean?

Mechanicals will work, but rob penetration power on a traditional bow. Sometimes enough energy is robbed, that when hitting a rib, you will injure instead of kill, while a COC would have killed. So why risk it?

Dwayne


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

DwayneR said:


> Sometimes enough energy is robbed, that when hitting a rib, you will injure instead of kill, while a COC would have killed. So why risk it?


Dwayne,

I pretty much agree with everything you said...except I believe there is a point where a mechanical broadhead can be still very effective even when hitting a rib of a whitetail deer.

At some point...it really won't be a risk regarding certain set ups and the animal an archer is hunting.

Some mechanicals are better designed than others.

My question is...what is the cut off point in KE, MO and/or draw weight where an archer can confidently use a mechanical broadhead for whitetail deer and not have to worry about ribs or wounding a deer even with a well placed shot?

Ray


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

First off, mechanical heads were designed to help arrow flight when shooting a fast bow, bows shooting over 270 fps. Fast bows and big broadheads don't work to good, so, it has nothing to do with tuning. And most compound shooters worry and tune thier bows way better then most trad shooters.
Two years ago I shot a mule deer buck with the G5 Tekan, and yessir, got over 20" of penetration from a 57# bow and a 450 grain carbon arrow. I did it cause guys said it couldn't be done. It's called matching your equipment to the animals you hunt.
That thing that Dale does pushing broadheads through leather is an old Paul Brunner trick. If he were to sharp the tips of the other broadheads like he does on the Woodsman, you would see different results. We've always told guys to sharpen the tips on the broadheads like the Muzzy, Rocky Mountains, or the Wasps. And they get super sharp.
Just how much energy do you really need to kill a whitetail? Honestly, even the big bucks we kill in Ohio is only 14" to 16" thick through the chest, and I no problems at all shooting through them with a 450 grain shaft and a 100 grain Wac'em or a 90 grain Muzzy. So why wouldn't a mechanical head like the Tekan work? You can sharpen the tip, have scary sharp blades, and because of the design, robs very little energy to open the blades. I know they worked great on my muley buck at 27 yards.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Crowdog said:


> First off, mechanical heads were designed to help arrow flight when shooting a fast bow, bows shooting over 270 fps. Fast bows and big broadheads don't work to good, so, it has nothing to do with tuning. And most compound shooters worry and tune thier bows way better then most trad shooters.


Do you know that as a fact as the ONLY reason why mechanical broadheads were designed?

Or were they designed for anyone struggling with broadhead flight?

If the latter is true...than people who don't know how to tune their equipment fall into that category.

Before I shot traditional bows I use to shoot high poundage fast compound bows with overdraws and could easily get fixed blade broadheads to group with my field points.

I agree with everything else you said but I doubt that the ONLY reason mechanical heads were created were ONLY for those people with very fast bows who couldn't get good arrow flight from fixed blade broadheads.

Ray


----------



## trapperDave (Mar 12, 2005)

try those mechanicals on sharp angle shots,,,then tell me you think they're good and suited to trad gear-or compounds for that matter.

Leave em for the dummies that dont know any better or how to tune their gear.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

trapperDave said:


> try those mechanicals on sharp angle shots,,,then tell me you think they're good and suited to trad gear-or compounds for that matter.
> 
> Leave em for the dummies that dont know any better or how to tune their gear.


Calling people dummies??? Do you really feel that's necessary? :sad:

If a hunter knows his limitations and his equipments limitations and sticks to them...I don't see anything dumb about their choices as long as they abide by them.

Many bowhunters still wait for better shot opportunities that don't include sharp angles.

Your point of view could easily be made by rifle hunters with an opinion on hunting with sticks and strings.

It's nothing more than a choice...that can effectively work under certain conditions.

Not my cup of tea...but I certainly don't have a problem with others that make that choice.

Ray


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

Easy guys, there is no reason so say things about the compound shooters, cause yes, I'm also a compound shooter. So, if you are so good at tuning, do you weigh each and every arrow? each and every broadhead? If we put your bow in a shooting machine, would the arrows hit in the same hole? It seems that most compound shooters are worried with thier equipment being perfect while most trad shooyers settle for "good enough". So lets not talk about who tunes their bows and equipment better.
Sharp angels? Um.. lets see, oh yea, I've got a bear skin with a 8" slice from a Snuffer that didn't penetrate on a sharp angel shot. I've had arrows tipped with magnus heads and Zwickeys slide off of plywood shot from angels. But I've had heads like the Tekan and the Rage penetrate. Don't figure... 
I don't have any problems getting my Wac'ems or Muzzys to fly good at 270 fps either, but at 40 yards, they don't shoot and group as well as the Rages or mechanicals do. Most guys that shoot mechanicals shoot them cause they want perfect arrow flight at longer distances, and fixed heads don't cut it. If they were, then there wouldn't be an increase of smaller fixed bladed heads like the Muzzy MX, the Wasp Boss, or the Crossfires, the Wac'ems, the Titan's, they are made smaller to help improve arrow flight at higher speeds. Trying shooting a Phantom on a light shaft at 270 fps at 50 yards and see if you're happy with the arrow flight.
The introduction of the mechanical didn't happen cause guys couldn't tune thier bows, it was cause people wanted bigger holes and better blood trails. People learned that these heads fly better then most fixed bladed heads did at longer yardages, cut more tissue, and flew with pin point accuracy.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Crowdog said:


> Easy guys, there is no reason so say things about the compound shooters...


Totally agree!



Crowdog said:


> So, if you are so good at tuning, do you weigh each and every arrow? each and every broadhead?


No...but I can accurately shoot a bareshaft out to 100yrds. with great arrow flight and group field points and broadheads with my bareshafts at various distances.



Crowdog said:


> So lets not talk about who tunes their bows and equipment better.


I agree...because it's a personal thing...and it wouldn't be accurate to say that all compound shooters tune one way and all trad shooters tune another way.

There are more accurate ways to tune our equipment and there are obviously less accurate ways to tune our equipment. Some people try to tune to perfection...while others could care less or don't know how.



Crowdog said:


> The introduction of the mechanical didn't happen cause guys couldn't tune thier bows, it was cause people wanted bigger holes and better blood trails. People learned that these heads fly better then most fixed bladed heads did at longer yardages, cut more tissue, and flew with pin point accuracy.


Again...do you have proof that is the only reason?

Do you manufacture broadheads? Have you researched why other companies have designed these broadheads?

Ray


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Check out these new mechanical broadheads. They look pretty effective to me...yet still not my cup of tea.

Ray


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

Ray, Yessir, look back through the older bowhunting magazines, and you'll find ads that talk about improved blood trails and bigger holes, not better arrow flight. 
I've worked in and around archery since the 80"s, used to test equipment for several manufactors, owned my own archery shop, and today spend most of my free time in the local pro shop setting bows up, helping to tune, and shooting. And yes, there is a huge difference in shooting an arrow at 20 yards at 180 fps and an arrow at 50 or 60 yards at 270 fps or 300 fps. Sorry, but I've been to to many shows like Kalamazoo and seen guys excited about shooting 12" groups at 12 yards that they run and buy the bow cause they can't believe how good it shoots for them.
I got on these thread cause of the remarks made against the compound shooter, and about their poor tuning capabilities. It's remarks like these from guys that think they are better then everyone else that gets my blood pressure up. I don't like guys bashing other shooters. It's not classy, and shows no respect. Anthony


----------



## WHD 32519 (Oct 17, 2008)

Six/seven years ago I was checking into trophy boar hunts. 250-350lbs plus pigs; not one, zero, zip, guide would allow mechanical broadheads. These are the guys on the front line and should know what works and what doesn't. Just for the record they also frowned on bows under #60.

Good shooting,
Chris


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Crowdog said:


> Ray, Yessir, look back through the older bowhunting magazines, and you'll find ads that talk about improved blood trails and bigger holes, not better arrow flight.


I disagree. I have seen adds talking about how a bowhunter can get better arrow flight with mechanical heads.



Crowdog said:


> And yes, there is a huge difference in shooting an arrow at 20 yards at 180 fps and an arrow at 50 or 60 yards at 270 fps or 300 fps.


Never said there wasn't a difference. I've just said that when I shot high speed compounds I didn't have to use mechanical heads to achieve good accuracy with even at longer distances.

If an archer tunes to perfection and is using the proper size fletching...big broadheads shouldn't be a problem with any bow a bowhunter chooses to use...compound bow or trad bow.

The key is knowing how to tune...and using proper fletching.

An archer shouldn't expect to be able to use fletching that is 3" or less to effectively guide an arrow with a big broadhead on it...even if the arrow is tuned properly.



Crowdog said:


> Sorry, but I've been to to many shows like Kalamazoo and seen guys excited about shooting 12" groups at 12 yards that they run and buy the bow cause they can't believe how good it shoots for them.


No need to appologize. I've seen that too...just as I've seen compound shooters who are weekend warriors who are clueless about tuning and use mechanical broadheads because they can't get any other broadhead to fly decent at all.



Crowdog said:


> I got on these thread cause of the remarks made against the compound shooter, and about their poor tuning capabilities. It's remarks like these from guys that think they are better then everyone else that gets my blood pressure up. I don't like guys bashing other shooters. It's not classy, and shows no respect.


I totally agree. 

Ray


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

Ray,
Since the 70's, when they were making the Mohawks and the early 80's, when they were making the Vpiers, the ads and the trestimonies were about about bigger enterance holes, better blood trails.
The Punchcutters were about accuracy at longer ranges.
The idea behind the vanes like the Blazers is rigid vane, not the length. The rigid vane doesn't flutter like a longer vane or feather, and it controls the arrow better. It was nothing to do with length. Thats why guys are getting great accuracy at 60 yards with small fixed blade heads.

This thread was about mechanicals out of traditional bows, guys saying that they wouldn't work. But no one has yet to prove or show why they wouldn't work. With the right head like the G5 Teakan you posted, why wouldn't they work? With the slip blade design, they are a devastating head. So, again, I ask guys here, why wouldn't they work? Magazines like Bow and Arrow, Petersen's Bowhunting, did a lot of tests on these heads, and what guys here are saying don't match what the tests showed. Anthony


----------



## trapperDave (Mar 12, 2005)

here's some broadhead study material for ya,,,,read it all


http://tradgang.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=24


----------



## sawtoothscream (Apr 19, 2008)

hahaha a simple question that turns into a fixed vs mech head bash fest.

both mechs and fixed do there job and very well. if mechs didnt kill than why would people use them? 

now for trad gear i wouldnt use a mech just because with my rig they wouldnt work at all and i prefere a coc type head for slower gear. like everything i have.

if i had a high powered compound i wouldnt have any prob with a good mech head like spitfires, steel heads and reapers. they do there job and then some.

but my slow bows need a sharp. coc head like magnus to make me feel comfortable shooting at game.

just shoot what ever you like both are proven and work so no one can argue.

and the whole people use them cause there lazy is just dumb. some people just like having a bigger better whole and if its easier to tune and works why not give them a go?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Crowdog said:


> Ray,
> Since the 70's, when they were making the Mohawks and the early 80's, when they were making the Vpiers, the ads and the trestimonies were about about bigger enterance holes, better blood trails.
> The Punchcutters were about accuracy at longer ranges.


That may be true...because I don't have those specific adds in front of me...but I do recall adds for mechanical broadheads claiming better accuracy and better arrow flight compared to other heads.



Crowdog said:


> The idea behind the vanes like the Blazers is rigid vane, not the length. The rigid vane doesn't flutter like a longer vane or feather, and it controls the arrow better. *It was nothing to do with length.* Thats why guys are getting great accuracy at 60 yards with small fixed blade heads.


Fletching length definitely plays a roll...so saying length has nothing to do with it...is wrong. Otherwise 1", 1/2" fletchin would work for broadheads...no matter how rigid the vanes were.

Fletching length, shape and material will ALL play a roll in how a particular fletching will guide an arrow.

ALL of it plays a roll...to say otherwise would be wrong.

I think the reason why some of the guys here or anywhere else say the things they do concerning mechanical broadheads are basing some of their opinions on the mechanical broadheads of the past.

Today's mechanical broadheads have evolved and improved over the mechanical broadheads of the past. Some are even Cut On Contact.

Ray


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

Thanks TrapperDave, the reports sure prove your point. Sorry, but I've read the good doc's reports, and have argued with several guys about it, and i'm still shooting 450 grain carbon arrows and double edged broadheads. And I know a lot of guys that ain't running around buying all the heavy arrows they can and shooting 70# plus longbows. Again, why can't mechanical heads like the Tekan work out of trad bows? Why couldn't you just say that "I don't know, but I wouldn't shoot them out of my setup"?

Guys, we should want to shoot the best we can with the equipment we choose to use, period. If you want to try a mechanical head, do it. Thats the only way we will learn what works and what doesn't work. But lets stop this nonsense about running down guys just cause of thier equipment choses, cause i sure don't go to the compound shooters forums and hear them running down trad shooters. Guys have a good day, Anthony


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

It basically comes down to:

Knowing the animal you are hunting and the requirements needed to kill that animal effectively.

Knowing your own limitations and capabilities.

Knowing your equipments limitations and capabilities.

Knowing those will help you make choices that are personal to you and your goals and might not be the exact choices that someone else may make.

Some choices can be better and some can be worse...and than there are a whole bunch of choices that can be just as effective.

Ray


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Crowdog and Ray- you're both right! Mechanicals are easier to tune while getting the larger hole of a bigger COC. 

The biggest problem I have with expandables is that not many trad archers are using a strong enough set up, or are shooting well enough to make up for the several drawbacks to them. COC heads don't have these same drawbacks, and better serve a traditional archer.

Of course, you could also argue two or three blade heads, and then bleeders...


----------



## jetthelooter (Feb 9, 2009)

this is an interesting topic and after reading everyones opinion i have come to one of my own. the traditional style shooter has enough things running against him/her and adding another layer of potential problems in hoping a gadget works right is probably not a good idea. archery has been around 10000 or so years. that amount of history is telling me the simple, flat, two edged broadhead is the optimal method for tipping an arrow for hunting. whether that arrow is tipped with stone or steel doesnt matter.

as for compound shooters they have only been around 40 50 years. they are still trying to discover what works best for their weapon style. that is probably why you see so many variations when it come to the business end of the arrow. 

when i go hunting this coming fall it will be with flat broadheads of two blade design, after i re-tune to use them and practice with them.


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

Most compound shooters know what works for them, and don't change. I've used Muzzys for over 14 years, and loved it when they bought the Phantom line. I've played with and shot a lot of broadheads, one of the benefits that come when you own your own shop. 
There are a lot of broadeheads on the market today, and each one offers it's own advantages. Before you settle on just one head, shoot as many as possible. Pick one that has what you are wanting, quality, strength, and easy to sharpen. Remember that there is no "super head". Anthony


----------



## Str8 Shooter (Oct 15, 2005)

Mechanicals certainly aren't something that has come about since compounds. I've seen "Scissor" heads in some of the old broadhead collections. Irregardless of whether they were introduced for improved flight or larger holes they are just another head to choose from.

Personally, I think a good mechanical head may be a viable option for some people. I've done testing on deer shoulder blades with various heads, including mecanicals, and never had issues with penetration. I wouldn't hesitate to use one on small game and turkeys. Having said that I'd rather use a fixed head for big game. I'm sure an expandable would be just fine for penetration. My biggest concern is the moving blades. I used to run a proshop and I've seen a number of mech heads with sheared blades from bone hits. 

If I were going to use a expandable for big game it would be one with a moderate cutting diameter, a coc tip, and cam style blade deployment. The over the top opening blades can require as much as 1/3 of the energy to open (tested). The cam action (rear open) blades, like the Stryker or Rage, require significantly less energy to open.

Interesting topic and timing. I'm going to be chasing turkeys next month. If I get an opportunity I'll probably hammer one with a solid expandable. Big hole and hopefully enough energy transfer to knock one over so it doesn't get up.


----------



## bambam1 (Jul 22, 2007)

Well, i use both,,, for diff. applications. One thing, there are coc mech. heads out there with a razor tip. My personal opinion is a mechanical head is far sharper than a knapped flint head, but i know guys are using those to harvest deer with traditional equiptment. I use stingers for deer with the recurve, but honestly, i think a well placed mech. head from my setup would have no problem taking a deer down. Jmo


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

Hello Ray,



> My question is...what is the cut off point in KE, MO and/or draw weight where an archer can confidently use a mechanical broadhead for whitetail deer and not have to worry about ribs or wounding a deer even with a well placed shot?


 Your answer is dependent upon the bow and how it casts the arrow.

I shoot a 45# Mamba.... 145f/s and a 530 grain arrow. KE is 25.

A mechanical (like a spitfire) will not open up and penetrate, but a COC do the slicing and dicing. Using a deer skin for test purposes works wonders. :wink:

But, a stronger bow that pushes 35 or 40+KE may work fine, or maynot.

My issue is this.

You can play the game of "what if", and "Yeah it will work for the most part", but IMO one should strive for the "best" penetration possible when using bows such as traditionals and lower KE bows. And I will even go as far as saying for compounds too. But I can safely say that compounds (unless they are lower poundage) usually have enough power to spare to operate a mechanical head and still get the job done.

Using a 45# compound, Spitfire mechanical, my Nephew shot a doe broadside... It penetrated about 8 inches total. I do not have the weight in grains of the arrow, or the speed of the bow, so KE cannot be determined. The kill was a good lung shot, but I look back and think to myself, mechanical or not, for a 15 yard shot, never again for mechanics with low poundage bows. A traditional would be even lower KE.

Dwayne


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

bambam1 said:


> Well, i use both,,, for diff. applications. One thing, there are coc mech. heads out there with a razor tip. My personal opinion is a mechanical head is far sharper than a knapped flint head, but i know guys are using those to harvest deer with traditional equiptment. I use stingers for deer with the recurve, but honestly, i think a well placed mech. head from my setup would have no problem taking a deer down. Jmo


Ever see a flint or obsidian head? By simple physics they're shaper than steel and in person you have to watch the stuff closely to make sure you don't cut yourself open.

But bone, shell, and wood don't get quite so sharp and they'll kill cleanly also.


----------



## bambam1 (Jul 22, 2007)

kegan said:


> Ever see a flint or obsidian head? By simple physics they're shaper than steel and in person you have to watch the stuff closely to make sure you don't cut yourself open.
> 
> But bone, shell, and wood don't get quite so sharp and they'll kill cleanly also.


 Yes sir, i've got boxes of them.Another hobby,like i need another. Even made a few myself, will say this ,, if i were an indian i woulda starved,,, 
You are right, amazing how sharp they can get flint to be. I have talked to a few who know how to knapp heads and have heard talk of guys making heads out of glass, claim to be sharp as all getout. My statement is mechanicals can be an effective tool when used for that purpose. Me , i love them on turkeys as i like the arrow to stay in the bird. While i don't use them with the recurve on deer, some designs open with very little ke and would do the trick with a heavier poundage setup. But, like most say, why take the chance when you don't have to. :darkbeer:


----------



## red44 (Apr 11, 2005)

DwayneR a spitfire is an energy eater just to open them. Plus they're 1.5" opened. I'll repeat that a mechanical would'nt be my first choice, but there are a couple I'd use if'n I had to The formerly ROCKET steelhead is a typical over-the-top type with a cutting diameter of 1 1/8 and need only to overcome the rubber band to open. A Rocky Mountain Snyper is a rear opener as is a G5 Tekan. They would be better choices if one were to venture into mechanicals.


----------



## DwayneR (Feb 23, 2004)

Hello Red44,



> DwayneR a spitfire is an energy eater just to open them. Plus they're 1.5" opened. I'll repeat that a mechanical would'nt be my first choice, but there are a couple I'd use if'n I had to The formerly ROCKET steelhead is a typical over-the-top type with a cutting diameter of 1 1/8 and need only to overcome the rubber band to open. A Rocky Mountain Snyper is a rear opener as is a G5 Tekan. They would be better choices if one were to venture into mechanicals.


 I know all about the Rockets... I used to shoot them... Steelhead also recommend a speed of 220 FPS, and that comes from the manufacturer. The spitfire also opens easier. I also like the blades, they are a little thinner than the spitfire.

One thing I do love about spitfires *AND* Rockets, is that they are the BEST penetrating mechanicals I have shot so far. I think it has to do with the gradual point that they have on them. 

Dwayne


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

bambam1 said:


> Yes sir, i've got boxes of them.Another hobby,like i need another. Even made a few myself, will say this ,, if i were an indian i woulda starved,,,
> You are right, amazing how sharp they can get flint to be. I have talked to a few who know how to knapp heads and have heard talk of guys making heads out of glass, claim to be sharp as all getout. My statement is mechanicals can be an effective tool when used for that purpose. Me , i love them on turkeys as i like the arrow to stay in the bird. While i don't use them with the recurve on deer, some designs open with very little ke and would do the trick with a heavier poundage setup. But, like most say, why take the chance when you don't have to. :darkbeer:


Oh, I wasn't arguing about mechanical heads. There are plenty of others for that

But I've cut myself with both obsidian and the sharpest high-carbon knife I have. The obsidian was hundreds of times sharper. I was jsut trying to clear that up is all.


----------



## sir buckwheat (Mar 21, 2007)

WOW! Didn't realize what a can of worms I opened here. First off, for those who don't like mechanicals and don't think they penetrate as well or work well on quartering shots I respect your opinion, just don't agree with it. My last elk was shot at 44 yards quartering away. The angle was enough I second guessed my decision to shoot, but then felt comfortable enough to loose the arrow. It went in just in front of his hind quarter and poked through his front shoulder on the off side. Not a complete pass through, but the head did exit and he only went about 50 yards. I don't think you can ask for better penetration than that on a 3 1/2 year old bull.

Heres another question for you, I know someone else asked it earlier but it wasn't answered. How much penetration do you really need??? On an elk? A deer? An Antelope? Or a Bear??? How far must the arrow penetrate to be lethal?? I know my thoughts, but what are yours???


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

sir buckwheat said:


> How much penetration do you really need??? On an elk? A deer? An Antelope? Or a Bear???


My personal opinion is...in order for an arrow to be lethal....all it really needs to do is penetrate enough to damage a vital organ or cut a major artery...but I personally prefer that I have the capability to at LEAST penetrate both lungs of whatever animal I'm hunting. An elk with only one lung penetrated can go quite a ways...and I like to increase the chances of recovering the animals I mortally wound.

With some of todays new mechanical broadheads...penetration and mechanical effectiveness is far less of a problem than what it used to be.

With all that being said...I also love complete pass throughs and big blood trails 

Ray


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

sir buckwheat said:


> Heres another question for you, I know someone else asked it earlier but it wasn't answered. How much penetration do you really need??? On an elk? A deer? An Antelope? Or a Bear??? How far must the arrow penetrate to be lethal?? I know my thoughts, but what are yours???


Native Americans rarely got pass-thoughs or drop-where-they-stand kills I'm sure, but there are three large differences between their hunting and modern bowhunting:

1. They were, by _far_, superior trackers.

2. Their points, once inside an animal, will saw, cut, dice (and in the cases of shattered stone/obsidian points) completely pulverize the internal organs with each bit of brush an arrow hits, causing even more damage. For them, the animal is dead no matter how far the arrow gets into the chest cavity.

3. Theirs was over vast lands with no political agendas. If a deer got hit in the liver and wandered two miles, they'd just go track it. Today, that same deer would wind up in someone's front yard. We have enough irresponsible slobs out there that are ruining the image of hunters. Thanks to all of those slobs out there who have no respect for the animal and don't belong in the woods in the first place, the rest of us have to walk on some thin ice.

But that's just my opinion of course, and has nothing to do with the effectiveness of mechanical heads.


----------



## red44 (Apr 11, 2005)

Opening a can of worms is good if everybody recognizes that as individuals we are entitiled to our own opinion, and I think we all did good there.
I also think we all (or most) prefer a fixed blade over mechanicals with this type of bow.
Penetration needs only to get to the far side, but it's nice to have a little more and have a blood trail. The quickest deer down for me did'nt have a pass-thru, but did get to the far side ribs.


----------



## sir buckwheat (Mar 21, 2007)

Just for the record, I plan on shooting fixed blades with my longbow, I just really liked the mechanical tips when I had my compound. They performed really well for me, and I did tune my bow regularly... 

The penetration question came not only from the discussion, but from a hunting show I watched the other night. A woman shot a doe and I swear she didn't get 4" of penetration. The arrow fell out of the deer on its first jump. The deer dropped within 100 yards. I couldn't believe it. I was cussing them for showing such a poor hit on an animal, then the deer fell over!


----------



## Bowdon (Aug 17, 2004)

No No recurve are not fast enough and don't have enough KE for mechanicals . Even light poundage compounds don't have enough KE. It takes energy away from the hit to open them up. 25 to 36 lbs of KE is not enough, You need about 60 to 70 lbs of KE for them to really work good.


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

Again, I disagree. With the mule deer buck I shot a few years ago, I got a lot of penetration out of a 57# Bob Lee and a G5 Tekan. I did it cause guys were telling me I couldn't do it, and I had to prove them wrong. Again, if you pick the right heads, like the Tekan, you would be surprised. For someone to say that a recurve don't have enough KE had better start experimenting with his bows. Heck, I once seen a field point shot from a 60# HH shoot through a bull elk at over 25 yards away. Bull died under 100 yards. 
Many times, when you see a hit that seens hardly any penetration as achieved, chances are the arrow hit something on the other side and bounced back out. 
I was the one that asked the question about how much penetration do you need? If you shoot through a deer, in and out, then in a way, you wasted KE, that you could of used to shoot a bigger broadhead. Which is better, 18" of penetration and a 1" slice, or 14" of penetration with a bigger hole?


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Crowdog said:


> Which is better, 18" of penetration and a 1" slice, or 14" of penetration with a bigger hole?


I'll take answer C - a complete pass through giving me 2 holes...preferably with a 2 blade with small bleeder blades or a 3 blade like a RazorCap or a Wensel Woodsman.

Ray


----------



## Bowdon (Aug 17, 2004)

I have shot over a 150 deer, elk and other game. With a recurves, long bows and compound bows. One thing I have learned in over 40 + years is complete pass through kills a lot faster than a arrow that stay in the animal. I have always shot heaver bows 65 lb recurves, 70 lb compound and a 75 lb long bow. A arrow that stay in the animal plugs the hole . Keep the lung from collapsing and the blood from flowing. A complete pass through bleeds out better and when air rushes into the lungs and they collapse fast. In Vet Nam we learned if some one is shot in the lungs you plug the hole as fast as you can with you finger are any thing your have to stop the lung from collapsing. All the double lung pass through I get the animal goes down in about 30 to 50 yards and usually in sight. I have tried mechanical before with 60 lb + KE and didn't like the way that penetrated, Most were pass through, but just not like a fixed head were passing through game. I shot a bull elk at 45 yards and it was a pass through. Then later shot a buck at 25 yards and it didn't pass through. That was the last time I used mechanical heads.


----------



## LJOHNS (Dec 14, 2004)

I didn't read all of the posts but the short answer is never shoot mechanical broadheads out of a trad bow. Go to the trad gang site and read all the Dr. Ashby reports. You will learn all you need to know about trad bows and broadheads.


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

Again, why is the good doc's report considered the "bible" on arrow weight and broadheads? 
I see a lot of animals killed every year, from antelope, mule deer and elk to whitetails and exotics in Texas. All I can say is that the bigger the hole you can put in an animal, the better you are. Any broadhead, in the wrong place, can cause you to loose an animal, and any broadhead can fail you. I've seen Zwickeys and Magnus curl up when a leg bone it hit, so does that mean they are a bad broadhead? We can't say that expandables are bad based on a few guys testimony, without knowing the facts. In truth, a lot of animals hit and lost ain't the broadheads fault, it's poor shot placement!! So we should be blaming the shooter, not the broadhead.
Again, I'm sorry, but I've never seen an expandable fail, and I've been around them since the late 80's. Expandables from NAP, Wasp, Rocket, G5, are great heads. And they do what they were designed to do, to cut big, big holes. And when you put a big hole in an animal, you don't have to worry about holes plugging up.


----------



## bambam1 (Jul 22, 2007)

Crowdog,
While i agree with you, a bad shot is a bad shot no matter what your throwin. I think the main question here was , do trad bows have the energy to make the expandables do their thing? Quality of the head deffinately has a lot to do with it,, and poundage also. The biggest problem i see, most assume you must not be able to tune a bow if your shooting them, to me,, the ones who have penetration problems with the expandables as their arrow flight is whipping around loosing energy. Be it compound or trad. Jmo:darkbeer:


----------



## ravensgait (Sep 23, 2006)

I agree CD I don't see his reports as the be all end all either.

What always gets me when subjects like this come up is those who have never used the (in this case mechanical broad heads) who for some reason are so sure the item just can't work. 

Now all expandable BHs are not the same, just like in fixed blades some are better than others. How do we really know what BH works best for our setup ? There are no for sure test we can perform other then shooting one or two into plywood ETC to see what they do. We have to use our common sense and experience when looking at a new product and maybe a little testing of our own.

I tested one type with my equipment, it worked and worked well. Will it work with your set up? I have no idea.

Myself I have a hard time saying that such in such wont work, well unless I've tried it and it failed.... But that's just me.. Randy


----------



## trapperDave (Mar 12, 2005)

Crowdog said:


> Again, I disagree. With the mule deer buck I shot a few years ago, I got a lot of penetration out of a 57# Bob Lee and a G5 Tekan. I did it cause guys were telling me I couldn't do it, and I had to prove them wrong. Again, if you pick the right heads, like the Tekan, you would be surprised. For someone to say that a recurve don't have enough KE had better start experimenting with his bows. Heck, I once seen a field point shot from a 60# HH shoot through a bull elk at over 25 yards away. Bull died under 100 yards.
> Many times, when you see a hit that seens hardly any penetration as achieved, chances are the arrow hit something on the other side and bounced back out.
> I was the one that asked the question about how much penetration do you need? If you shoot through a deer, in and out, then in a way, you wasted KE, that you could of used to shoot a bigger broadhead. Which is better, 18" of penetration and a 1" slice, or 14" of penetration with a bigger hole?


who the he11 you runnin around with that shoots at elk with field points? Is that even legal?


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

For your imformation Trapper Dave, it was an accident, and it happened when I was giuding a hunter that was shooting a longbow and using a back quiver. He missed the first shoot, and I stopped the bull at 25 yards, so the guy reachs back, grabs an arrow nocks it, draws back and shoots. And no sir, he didn't know it was a field point until it was to late. It as an accident, that worked out. 
Sorry you have a problem with me Trapper Dave, and sorry I seem to know what I'm talking about. A question was asked, and I answered it. No sir, I don't go around shooting elk with field points, and I tell guys and clients that they don't need 600 grain arrows to kill elk and mule deer also. Anthony


----------



## Tajue17 (Aug 18, 2005)

I agree with red44 about the rocky mtn snyper--> even though it is considered mechanical I wouldn't put it in the same class as a front opening head and therefor I agree if I had to use one from traditional with that design I doubt I'd have problems with some of my setups. 

even with my compound I'd reach for the snyper first (not to be confused with the rage broadhead) if I had to go to mechancials. 

as for spitfires I can't understand why they are so popular where they are so HARD to open even with the compounds,,, I'd shoot a Rocket Steelhead or Jak-Hammer before a Spitfire anyday--> thats if I even got pass those PROVEN thunderheads. 

too many choices for anything to even matter :darkbeer:.


----------



## LJOHNS (Dec 14, 2004)

Crowdog - 

I am not saying that the Doc reports are the be all end all. But real world testing proved what type of head gets the best penetration. Granted he did most of his testing on very large boned animals. Mechanicals may work fine out of compounds but the traditional cut on contact broadhead has worked very well for thousands of years - thats just the fact of the mater. 

Use what you want but I will not shoot mechanical heads out of any bow.


----------



## Northern B. H. (Feb 10, 2009)

I was involved in an outfitting business in Sask. for several years. Only had one experience with a client shooting expandable broadheads and would never allow clients to use them in my camp after that.


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

Oh yes, but you see, when we tested arrows, arrow weights and broadheads several years ago using a shooting machine, our rersults wasn't as dramatic as the docs. At 30 yards, the penetration gained by a 600 grain arrow from a 450 grain was 1 7/8", but the trajectory and speed loss was very high. At 30 yards, we were hitting over 15" low with the heavier arrow and we lost over 18 fps. 
We used a shooting machine to eliminate all the human factors, spent days setting up arrows and broadheads. We found that the broadheads changed penetration more then the arrow weight.
I've spent a lot of years guiding hunters for elk, mule deer, black bear and antelope. I've seen a lot of weird things, seen a lot of arrow/broadhead combinations. And no sir, I still don't have the "perfect" arrow, don't think it really exists. And no sir, haven't found the "perfect" broadhead either, and neither has anyone else, thats why every year newer broadheads hit the market. There will always be a new broadhead that claims better penetration, better blood trails, and there will always be the ones that buy them, never satisfied with what they are using, and yessir, that includes traditional archerys. Shoot what gives you comfidence in yourself, but experiment before you talk about it. Anthony


----------



## Ratdog68 (Feb 22, 2009)

*One ol' 'Dog's input...*

Gimme a good cut on contact broadhead that misses bone and let me watch my quarry give a little flinch when struck, but not really know what hit him... and lemme watch him start the wobbly dance and drop before my eyes. That's what I'm striving to accomplish each time I go hunting.

Why on earth (for me) would I wanna SMACK that critter with a big enough thud to open up a gadget (do I KNOW for certain that it will?), scare the puddin' outta my quarry, send it running for dear life through heaven knows what, to heaven knows where? 

If I wanna trash good meat with kenetic energy, I'll reach for my rifles.


----------



## BLACK WOLF (Aug 26, 2005)

Ratdog68 said:


> Why on earth (for me) would I wanna SMACK that critter with a big enough thud to open up a gadget (do I KNOW for certain that it will?), scare the puddin' outta my quarry, send it running for dear life through heaven knows what, to heaven knows where?


I feel the same way. I don't use mechanical broadheads but I'm also aware that some of todays mechanical broadheads are NOT the same as yesterdays.

If I felt I needed or wanted to use a mechanical such as a G5 Tekan or a Grim Reaper Razorcut I wouldn't be nearly as hesitant to try one compared to some the mechanicals that first came out years ago. 



Ratdog68 said:


> If I wanna trash good meat with kenetic energy, I'll reach for my rifles.


I would too...but a broadhead won't trash the chest cavity like a bullet will in regards to damage caused by kinetic energy. A broadhead still kills by slicing and dicing (hemorrhage and blood loss) even though it may take KE to cause the blades to deploy.

Ray


----------



## Crowdog (Aug 30, 2005)

Truth be told, I'm a Muzzy man, been shooting the new Phantom MX the last few days at hogs and sheep, and I'm really impressed with the little 100 grain head. I just shoved one through the shoulder blades on a beautiful mouflon ram yesterday morning at 24 yards. 
With most mechanicals today, they don't "smack" on impact, most of them have cut on contact heads. And most, like the G5 Tekan, are very, very tough. 
With traditional bows, I see the need to use a good cut on contact head, but does that mean that we shouldn't be shooting heads like a Muzzy 3 blade head, or a Wasp or Thunderhead? I know a very successful recurve shooter that has killed a loy of elk with the Thunderhead and the Rocky Mountain Titanium. All I'm saying is that just cause you think one head is the best, for someone else, it might be junk.
Shoot straight, keep em' sharp, and no matter what head you shot, you'll kill animals. Anthony


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

Crowdog- the only possible thing I can come up with in regards to your opinion on "what is best" would be to mention that the style used with "traditional" equipment has been around far longer than anything else (including society for that matter) and is still around today for the simple fact that it's known to work.

Most archers today would be better served using what is "tried and true" instead of wounding an animal, especially when they're not all dead-accurate with their recurves and longbows anyway. 

Thinking in terms of someone who doesn't really know what they're doing in the first place... I don't know. The rules should be changed.

Howard Hill could shoot an apple off of a man's head. How many longbowman do you think could do that today...?


----------

