# Compound vs Recurve kill speed



## SPARTAN_HIPPO (Jan 15, 2017)

For those of you that hunt with both compounds and recurves, have you found there to be a significant difference between how fast an animal goes down? Are compounds generally more humane? (assuming all shots are well placed)


----------



## carmanusa (Jan 9, 2009)

no.


----------



## sawtoothscream (Apr 19, 2008)

A blade through the lungs is a blade through the lungs. Put a broadhead through both and it doesn't really matter how fast the arrow is moving.


----------



## BarneySlayer (Feb 28, 2009)

Never killed anything with a compound. Might try a rifle next year, just because. Assign whatever weight or lack thereof to my comments as you see fit.

It seems that you'd get more variation with shot placement than you would with arrow speed. It's not like you're getting that hydrostatic shock value. If the arrow goes all the way through, I can't think of a physical mechanism to explain different results. If you cut a steak in half slowly, or quickly, it's just as cut either way.


----------



## Bowsage (Apr 29, 2008)

None here, in fact, compound , recurve , longbow and blackpowder shot deer seem to expire from a well placed shot around sixty yards. That's been my experience.


----------



## SPARTAN_HIPPO (Jan 15, 2017)

Thanks for the replies! I just figured that you're far more likely to get a pass though shot with a compound than a recurve = more blood loss more quickly


----------



## BigCnyn (Nov 5, 2008)

no,,, sharp and shot placement kills


----------



## BOHO (Aug 7, 2004)

Ive killed deer with both. my quickest kills have been with a spitfire from a compound. blood loss is unreal. my trad kills normally ran a little farther and not as much blood but I used two blade heads for awhile. its always better to cut a hole rather than a slit.


----------



## JParanee (Oct 13, 2009)

Single strings shoot through deer too


----------



## hcorrigall (Apr 1, 2009)

More likely a miss with a compound than a recurve or longbow!!


----------



## J Wesbrock (Jul 6, 2016)

This deer got between my and a trail camera. It's an example of exactly what I expect with a recurve, a double lung pass through. He bolted 40 yards, stopped, and tipped over. Nothing to it.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

SPARTAN_HIPPO said:


> For those of you that hunt with both compounds and recurves, have you found there to be a significant difference between how fast an animal goes down? Are compounds generally more humane? (assuming all shots are well placed)


No... for those hunters that are into the tech part, having a scope with a mil dot reticle, is more favorable over a simple scope or a reflex/reticle sight especially if you know how to use it. Trajectories are better and simplify longer shots, giving you a longer or more usable point blank range... yet an 1860's Muzzleloader can probably hit a 1000 yard target with just as much consistency with a ladder sight as say, a 7mm mag.

Bottom line... they are different. Back in the 50's, it was acknowledged that MILLIONS of deer had been killed with 50# recurves... which sorta lays an end to the equivocations of one's avocations... if you like compound... learn to shoot it well... if you like recurves, longbows (as I do), or hybrids (as I do).... learn to shoot it well... and in either case... LEARN HOW TO HUNT... that actually more than anything else is what kills deer.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Jan 20, 2003)

This deer died plenty quickly for me. 
[email protected] shooting a 500grain arrow @ 165fps.

https://youtu.be/KFgUF-pam-8


----------



## Gobblengrunt933 (Jul 8, 2016)

I have found that my "recurve" deer seem to die quicker than my "compound" deer and here is why (my theory):

With a compound, I use to generally use larger broadhead and sometimes mechanicals which deer seem to react more when hit. I can hear the difference when a deer is shot with a large broadhead. They seem to react more to the loudness of the compound shot as opposed to a quiet recurve. Most of my bigger broadhead compound deer would run the "death run" until expiring.

For the last 6-7 years or so, I have hunted with nothing but recurves. One of the most important factors with hunting traditional was penetration. Since most of my bows have been around +/- 45#, broadhead selection became very important. Most every deer I have ever shot traditionally has been shot with a super sharp 2 blade broadhead with a high mechanical advantage. I have observed over and over that a deer hit with the above combo "sounds" quiet as it penetrates. Deer react a lot less with this broadhead type. With a super quiet recurve, most every deer I've shot seems to take a few steps to only stop and look around trying to figure out what happened. By that time the tail starts flickering, legs get whobbly, and down they go.

So it's not necessarily the bow that's making the difference but the general difference in typical sound and equipment used with each. Sharpness of the blades makes a huge difference in death quickness and shot reaction. I have never found a broadhead out of the package that I would consider her hunting sharp. Learn how to properly sharpen blades to scalpel like sharpness and it will always put more blood on the ground and result in quicker kills.


----------



## ChadMR82 (Sep 22, 2009)

GVDocHoliday said:


> This deer died plenty quickly for me.
> [email protected] shooting a 500grain arrow @ 165fps.
> 
> https://youtu.be/KFgUF-pam-8


Cool video! Man that longbow shoots an arrow fast! I have hunted in the UP around Bergland, MI. Beautiful country


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Jan 20, 2003)

ChadMR82 said:


> Cool video! Man that longbow shoots an arrow fast! I have hunted in the UP around Bergland, MI. Beautiful country


It was cooooold. -8 fahrenheit. I had snot running outta my nose dripping all over as I waited for that deer to out it's from the leg forward.


----------



## kegan (Aug 28, 2006)

SPARTAN_HIPPO said:


> Thanks for the replies! I just figured that you're far more likely to get a pass though shot with a compound than a recurve = more blood loss more quickly


That's what the commercials tell us, anyway.

I've never killed a deer with a compound, but am continuously amazed by the lethality of a sharp broadhead from a longbow. Even on liver hits, I've yet to have a deer go more than 100 yards. Hit them right and they seem to go down in sight, pass through or not. That said, I still get more pass through's than not, even shooting big Simmons broadheads.


----------



## rickstix (Nov 11, 2009)

My guess is there’s a little too much over-thinking going on.

Blood loss that occurs outside the critter surely benefits the tracker, but there is a far greater amount released into the body cavity than will ever reach the ground…until the critter is opened up. “Some” blood will happen to leak, or blow, out of an arrow’s entrance and/or exit holes, but if the arrow remains in the critter and both (or one if that’s all there is) of those holes are blocked by the arrow it is still bleeding internally. And, in such cases, the “well-placed” (lung) shot will have blood traveling up the windpipe and exiting the deer’s mouth.

I’ve never shot a deer with a compound, but I have with a firearm…and here we can easily get into the differences of how a deer expires…and there are a multitude of explanations on the forensic level. What doesn’t change is that a well-placed shot will have a deer down in a handful of seconds…although that does nothing to change the fact that a deer can easily travel a hundred yards in less time. 

A sound that will ordinarily alarm a deer works virtually the same as it always does but, the more silent the means, the more puzzled the animal is apt to be when a once in a life-time event takes place. But again, it’s the “blood loss” that’s escaping its normal course…within the critter…that’s working to put the animal down, more than what that particular critter chooses to do after the fact.

Humane?...absolutely and unequivocally the definition of humane to take any critter with a well-placed shot. Coyotes take a lot longer to kill a deer…often the process begins while the animal is still alive…and being hit by an automobile can result in a slow painful death.

A well-placed, simply constructed sharp broadhead is a highly efficient tool for getting the job done. Doesn’t get much simpler than that. Rick.


----------



## moog5050 (Oct 23, 2012)

I agree with Gobble in that big mechanicals from a compound always seem to make the deer sprint. Most likely the loud thwack when hit. The smaller heads used with my recurve are much quieter when they hit deer. Sometimes they sprint, sometimes they don't. Both result in a pass through for me. One could argue that blood loss is greater from a 2" mechanical vs. 1.25" 2 blade so maybe that causes a quicker death. BUT a good shot by both has the same result. Tracking is much easier from the big mechanical.


----------



## JasonJ (Feb 10, 2016)

I've only ever killed one deer in my hunts, and it was with a 1939 Mosin-Nagant rifle, 7.62x54r soft point hunting round.. deer jumped and kinda ran and died. I've seen longbow and recurve hunting vids that show equal sized animals expiring in shorting distances and length of time than from my 2900fps 180gr lead nosed bullet. 

Recurve or compound, it'll kill quick enough. But there is something to be said with how quiet a recurve or longbow firing a scalpel sharp broadhead kills. It's like silent death from afar.


----------



## jkm97 (Jul 8, 2004)

I've killed well over 100 with compounds and recurves, and there's isn't a difference on good hits.


----------



## ghostgoblin22 (May 3, 2013)

only difference can be blood trails because you can use those pesky mechanical heads and get unreal holes split, but dead is dead...no difference in being dead 40 yards or 100 yards from you


----------



## MGF (Oct 27, 2012)

I did kill a couple of deer with a compound many years ago and a couple with a "trad bow" in the last 10 years or so. That's probably not enough deer to make any real definitive statements, although, this year's buck was real convincing.

45# (or a little less) on the fingers, 15 yard shot put the Zwickey eskilite through both lungs and stuck it into the ground on the other side. I didn't have to follow the blood trail to find the deer because he went down almost right under my stand. I did follow the blood trail backwards to find the arrow. It was almost hard to follow because there was so much blood everyplace, even where the deer hadn't been.

This deer went down so fast and quiet that I almost couldn't believe I killed it until I found the arrow. 

My wife wanted to take pictures and maybe I should have for threads like this but, at the time, I didn't think there would be that many people who would really want to see such a mess. Everything around was blood soaked. Whatever spot you have to hit to let all the blood out at once, I hit it. LOL


----------



## scrub-buster (Apr 22, 2009)

It's all about shot placement. Hit them in the right spot and they die quickly. I killed a buck with a stone point from a selfbow. That buck didn't even know it was hit until his legs started getting wobbly. He died within 40 yards of the shot.


----------



## Sola gratia (Jan 8, 2017)

Archery kills are performed by hemorrhaging unlike zipping a 300 grain hunk of lead through the animal @ 2400 fps. Sharp broadheads through the both lungs or heart will be cause for prompt loss of oxygen to the brain for the animal, no matter how large. 150fps or 350fps, same results. Accuracy matters.

Doug


----------

