The story of two nephews - one named "Fixed-blade" the other named "Expandable"

[Artist]

Originally Posted by trouty

Total bs, you missed anything vital.

Well, you're welcome to have another look at the entry/exit wound photos in the original post. Unless, on this particular animal, the lungs were located somewhere in the rear end, your statement seems to be ignoring the science of a deer's anatomy.

[brendan's dad]

Not that the Montec was a bad shot, but from picture in post 26 it could have been just over the liver and just behind the lungs. Only explanation cause if you hit lungs or liver, that is a dead deer.

[shakeyleg02]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Not that the Montec was a bad shot, but from picture in post 26 it could have been just over the liver and just behind the lungs. Only explanation cause if you hit lungs or liver, that is a dead deer.

Exactly !! Looks like a well placed arrow that hit nothing vital as i say stranger have and will happen but at least the deer is down and all is well ..congrats again on the deer

[russ]

Read part of the first post and my balogna meter maxed out...

[Artist]

Originally Posted by brendan's dad

Not that the Montec was a bad shot, but from picture in post 26 it could have been just over the liver and just behind the lungs. Only explanation cause if you hit lungs or liver, that is a dead deer.

True enough, however, one lung was definitely hit upon inspection - yes, probably a dead dear...... eventually.

I concur that a scenario like this is very rare.

Seeing all the "denial" responses in this thread however, we now wished we'd have done a CSI-style photo-shoot of the internals, however, at the time, we didn't think that it would take that degree of investigative evidence to demonstrate that there can be drawbacks to using SOME of the smaller fixed-blades that are on the market today. I'm not out to change anyone's minds about what often seems to be a type of loyal "allegiance" to one style of broadhead - I'm just sharing an experience.

My conclusion is simply this: that had the original shot been with a broadhead with a larger cutting diameter (fixed or mechanical for that matter), the likelihood of that arrow finding it's way though that deer (given the shot placement as evident in the photos of the original post) without inflicting a quick kill would have been greatly diminished if not highly unlikely.

I just sometimes get a kick out of some bowhunters who will be quick to label expandable shooters as those who are 'too lazy to tune their bows', while at the same time not be willing to see the limitations of the smaller fixed-blades. IMO, given this case, whether my bow is tuned or not has absolutely nothing to do with the reason why I'd never shoot the smaller fixed blades.

[kujoseto]

Thanks for sharing. It's not too often we actually get pics of a story where a broadhead "failed". I used to shoot Montecs but have switched to grim reapers. I agree that a tuned bow is necessary for either type and people probably will have their preference regardless of the experiences of others, but it's nice to hear a story like this. Balances the story in the saga of mechanical vs fixed, even though it probably shouldn't be an argument one vs the other but which is the right one for each type because both can work

[huntinggr81]

Thanks for posting - I think this is a great thread. Over the last 15 years that I've been bowhunting I've switched from fixed blades, to expandables, to fixed blades again, and back to expandables which I've been shooting now again for the last 5 years. I use the 2-blade Rage - the original & that is the only Rage head I will use. It has a 2 inch cut diameter & I've killed a lot of animals with them in 5 years, but shot placement is definitely the key - doesn't matter what broadhead. The huge cutting diameter does leave a big hole though with the best bloodtrails I've followed all being from the Rage, sometimes blood sprayed more than 10 ft. For me it is all about shot placement & with all of my bow setups I can still consistently group a little bit better with expandables - even if it is only marginally better. They also seem to fly a little more forgiving when it comes to poor form which does happen sometimes to the best of us.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by russ

Read part of the first post and my balogna meter maxed out...

Baloney...........................can't bring myself to say bologna meter lol

[scalerman]

Let me start by saying that is one tough deer. An arrow through both lungs and it was still ambulatory 24 hours later? Man oh man that is unheard of. Good thing you took that deer out of the gene pool. If it had been allowed to reproduce there is no telling how many arrow proof deer there could have been. Thank you. The points that you make about expandables as opposed to fixed blades are very good. Fixed blades do have their limitations to be sure. A poorly placed shot with an expandable is still a poorly placed shot, no more or less so than with a fixed blade. Both animals that I killed with my bow last year were killed with fixed blade broadheads. The deer went about 30 yards and the moose went about 100. Both shots were pass throughs. Lots of blood to follow as both went through the lungs. To be clear, it is your contention that because of the size of the wound channel created by the fixed blade arrow, the injury inflicted by that arrow was able to clot and seal up thus allowing this deer to be survive until the next day? So you are saying that on a double lung hit deer, with a fixed blade, the wound is able to clot within the time frame it takes for the animal to bleed out? Never mind the fact that the function of the lungs and diaphragm are now disrupted by the fact that the vacuum required for inspiration and exhalation are impossible due to the hole in the thoracic cavity? I am not questioning your assertion about the expandable broadheads, I am however questioning the whether or not that the first shot would have been whether using fixed or expandable blades. You seem to think so. I am sorry but for some reason the pictures that you have posted will not load on my computer and as such I have not looked at them. I am quite certain however that the first shot did not pierce a lung nor did it hit a major blood vessel. If it did either of those things and the blood was able to clot in time to prevent fatal blood loss then we need to stop hunting with rifles that make such small holes in deer as well. Apparently anything with a bore smaller than 1 3/8" is too small. Awesome time to go rifle shopping again.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by Artist

True enough, however, one lung was definitely hit upon inspection - yes, probably a dead dear...... eventually.

I concur that a scenario like this is very rare.

Seeing all the "denial" responses in this thread however, we now wished we'd have done a CSI-style photo-shoot of the internals, however, at the time, we didn't think that it would take that degree of investigative evidence to demonstrate that there can be drawbacks to using SOME of the smaller fixed-blades that are on the market today. I'm not out to change anyone's minds about what often seems to be a type of loyal "allegiance" to one style of broadhead - I'm just sharing an experience.

My conclusion is simply this: that had the original shot been with a broadhead with a larger cutting diameter (fixed or mechanical for that matter), the likelihood of that arrow finding it's way though that deer (given the shot placement as evident in the photos of the original post) without inflicting a quick kill would have been greatly diminished if not highly unlikely.

I just sometimes get a kick out of some bowhunters who will be quick to label expandable shooters as those who are 'too lazy to tune their bows', while at the same time not be willing to see the limitations of the smaller fixed-blades. IMO, given this case, whether my bow is tuned or not has absolutely nothing to do with the reason why I'd never shoot the smaller fixed blades.

I, for one, am not doubting your story, but I do not see the "limitations" (as you say) on fixed blades. I shoot Strikers and have never had an issue. People make choices and not all choices are the same for many reasons. You really didn't expect everyone here to agree with your anti-fixed blade philosophy?

You seem to be taking this a tad too personally. Too much hunting season left to be grumpy...

[Ultimate Predator]

Fixed or mechanical trough lungs = dead deer

[Lornce]

There certainly are a huge variety of Broadheads out there now. But you shouldn't discount a generation of hunters like myself who have used standard fixed blades to take big game. I've managed a great many Whitetails, Mules, a Couple of Moose and Elk since the 60's using fixed. I've also test shot variety of other heads some of which I would never use on an animal.

Some of my shots have been full through penetration with blood trail on both sides. I've also had shots that have been into the vitals that did not pass completely through. The animal in running alone added to internal bleeding with still enough blood to track and resulted in downed game in the end. Every situation is a bit different.

I'm a great believer of being sure you know your flight characteristics with your bow and testing the heads you intend to use. With the advent of faster bows Mechanical heads made more sense as these short fast bows are not as forgiving a bad release. Unfortunately many buy into the hype of "it flies like a field point" and never actually test shoot to see what happens with your bow/fletch head combo. As was said mechanical's are really made for bows #60+ to get good opening plus the more bladed the more drag. Tuning is not only shaft/fletch but also head.

I'm also been a believer in exact placement, I've always passed up shots further than 45-50 yards In favor of knowing the shot. I've tried the 2 blade rage heads and like them. Haven't tried the larger 3 bladed Grim Reapers, they do look like they would do the job. But then again a great many people like myself still use fixed blades with high success rates. Just don't discount fixed blades, they are still as deadly as they where.

Just some food for thought and my 2 cents from an old guy.

[Artist]

Just for the record my friends;

a) I'm not expressing concern over ALL fixed blades - just over some on the market today that are much smaller than what we've seen historically. I think that point has been clear in my posts.

b) I'm not at all grouchy ...took my biggest 4-point this year! ...nor taking any feedback in this thread "personally"... life is too short to get emotionally involved in such exchanges of information.

c) Don't have an agenda here either, nor any reason to twist our story in any way. I'm not a salesman for any broadhead company! Just sharing an experience.

Enjoy the season!!

[crownb]

The last time I used a mechanical was in 2008, I shot a 200 plus inch whitetail at 21 yards slightly quartering away, the shot was maybe a bit far back but good enough, I was using 100 grain spitfires, upon hitting the deer I was super pumped, but when the deer turned to run the arrow looked to be in his armpit and fell out not 10 yards later. We went back the next morning and tracked him for 7 hours, thanks to my wife who finally found him but he was far from dead, we chased him the rest of the day and finally tired him out enough for another shot. After inspection the mechanical spitfire had obviously opened on one blade first and it zippered open the side of the deers hide and ended up lodging in the armpit hitting nothing vital. He had enough of an injury with his hide being split open and his armpit festering that we were able to catch up to him.
After this experience I was a changed shooter.

[Artist]

Originally Posted by crownb

The last time I used a mechanical was in 2008, I shot a 200 plus inch whitetail at 21 yards slightly quartering away, the shot was maybe a bit far back but good enough, I was using 100 grain spitfires, upon hitting the deer I was super pumped, but when the deer turned to run the arrow looked to be in his armpit and fell out not 10 yards later. We went back the next morning and tracked him for 7 hours, thanks to my wife who finally found him but he was far from dead, we chased him the rest of the day and finally tired him out enough for another shot. After inspection the mechanical spitfire had obviously opened on one blade first and it zippered open the side of the deers hide and ended up lodging in the armpit hitting nothing vital. He had enough of an injury with his hide being split open and his armpit festering that we were able to catch up to him.
After this experience I was a changed shooter.

Bad things can happen with any broadhead - fixed or mechanical Our experiences can change us to take a few different directions!

[crownb]

Exactly, there is no right or wrong, mostly just what you have experienced or witnessed.

[Lefty]

One thing not brought up yet is sharpness. I find that with fixed blades that taking them in and out of the quiver they dull pretty quickly, and making sure of having a sharp head is important. My bow is an older one and expandables definitely do not open correctly with it.

[albertabighorn]

Originally Posted by Artist

The Grim Reaper shot was, yes. Not the greatest placement, but it did the job.

Yup but on a wounded buck anything that gets vital is a shot I'd take. Was just trying to understand what you hit. You probably got a bit of everything with that arrow. I've had bad luck with certain mechanical and had great luck with another(rage), I've seen PX2 fixed blades kill and devastate many times as well. I think you just need to pick a quality proven broad head whether is mechanical of fixed blade is up to you.

[russ]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Predator

Fixed or mechanical trough lungs = dead deer

You missed field point

I'm not sure why a 3 bladed 1" montec would be viewed as inferior to a 1 1/8" 2 blade Bear Razorhead or a 1/2-3/4" flint knapped Native American blade. We're using atlatl sized points on modern equipment for crying out loud and people are saying a modern fixed blade broadhead doesn't work?

Hmmmm.....

[Spy]

Rage 2 blade. Mule deer. 17 yards. 60 pounds.

[albertabighorn]

Originally Posted by Spy

Rage 2 blade. Mule deer. 17 yards. 60 pounds.

Hey sweet buck and all but I hope you got pass through not hitting a rib and at 17yards. You Have a serious problem if you didn't.

[Artist]

Originally Posted by Spy

Rage 2 blade. Mule deer. 17 yards. 60 pounds.

Nice buck! Wow!

[Artist]

Originally Posted by albertabighorn

Hey sweet buck and all but I hope you got pass through not hitting a rib and at 17yards. You Have a serious problem if you didn't.

Not arguing - just curious - what exactly is the problem with not achieving a total pass-through? The buck is down. This is somewhat the whole point of what I'm getting at in this thread. We had total pass-through in the original post in this thread, and, ... well, the rest of the story is in the thread. I'll take half pass-through with a huge wound-channel and a massive blood-trail any day over total-pass through with a tiny wound-channel that closes up.
There's a bit of a theme apparent in the world of broadheads. The smaller the head, the better the penetration but the smaller the wound-channel as well. The bigger the head the less penetration but the bigger the wound-channel as well. Somewhere in the middle of those two realities is where it's at, be it fixed or mechanical.

[russ]

Your argument is inconsistent, on the one hand you tell us that the wound channel must be larger. Now you're saying it's okay for the wound channel to be restricted/plugged.

This thread is entirely about individuals that prefer to blame equipment rather than take responsibility for poorly made shots. There's no in between here, just excuses.

[Artist]

Originally Posted by russ

Your argument is inconsistent, on the one hand you tell us that the wound channel must be larger. Now you're saying it's okay for the wound channel to be restricted/plugged.

This thread is entirely about individuals that prefer to blame equipment rather than take responsibility for poorly made shots. There's no in between here, just excuses.

Uhhh.... can you please point out where exactly I've said it's ok for the wound channel to be restricted/plugged?.. . I'm not following, and, frankly, I don't think you are either. The whole point of what I'm simply "pointing" out, is that small wound channels can tend to plug up/close up, and cause the blood-trail to dry up.

[3blade]

This has little to do with fixed vs mechanical.

Two options:

A) the montec was not sharp, and did not cause bleeding. This can occur with any design, and is up to the operator to check.

B) the montec was fine but simply didn't cut any arteries. It is absolutely possible to shoot through both lungs and miss anything vital, the injured parts collapse and minor bleeding is stopped.

Deer blood is high in vitamin k and clots very quickly, so the external wound seals and the resulting pneumothorax is small enough not to slow it down significantly. Sure, higher cutting diameter improves chances of getting an artery, but it also increases chances of only getting one lung. It's hunting. Nothing is guaranteed.

the reason i refuse mechanical broadheads is the chance of a malfunction, in flight or in target. If they operate as designed, they kill just fine. I don't like "if's" and a mechanical malfunction is far more likely than the scenario in the op.

[Artist]

Originally Posted by 3blade

This has little to do with fixed vs mechanical.

Two options:

A) the montec was not sharp, and did not cause bleeding. This can occur with any design, and is up to the operator to check.

B) the montec was fine but simply didn't cut any arteries. It is absolutely possible to shoot through both lungs and miss anything vital, the injured parts collapse and minor bleeding is stopped.

Deer blood is high in vitamin k and clots very quickly, so the external wound seals and the resulting pneumothorax is small enough not to slow it down significantly. Sure, higher cutting diameter improves chances of getting an artery, but it also increases chances of only getting one lung. It's hunting. Nothing is guaranteed.

the reason i refuse mechanical broadheads is the chance of a malfunction, in flight or in target. If they operate as designed, they kill just fine. I don't like "if's" and a mechanical malfunction is far more likely than the scenario in the op.

Awesome post

[albertabighorn]

Originally Posted by Artist

Not arguing - just curious - what exactly is the problem with not achieving a total pass-through? The buck is down. This is somewhat the whole point of what I'm getting at in this thread. We had total pass-through in the original post in this thread, and, ... well, the rest of the story is in the thread. I'll take half pass-through with a huge wound-channel and a massive blood-trail any day over total-pass through with a tiny wound-channel that closes up.
There's a bit of a theme apparent in the world of broadheads. The smaller the head, the better the penetration but the smaller the wound-channel as well. The bigger the head the less penetration but the bigger the wound-channel as well. Somewhere in the middle of those two realities is where it's at, be it fixed or mechanical.

I personally don't think its a huge deal, if I hit a vital area and my broad head is stuck in the Cape on the exit it's still good. I guess the advantage of a pass through with a double lung shot would be a sucking chest wound on each side creating a phen/hemothorax and death faster. Also doubles the area to clot up making the animal make it less distance, expiring quicker.

[L.O.S.T.Arrow]

I shoot the G5 Fixed 125 gr Strikers...low profile by yesterdays standards..but still 1 1/8th three blade cut..watched the high majority of the animals shot with them go down...exception are mid high or higher shots...
with todays modern bows and speed bows mid high or higher shots will tend to hemmorage extremely inside the body cavity...

With lower profile heads if a greater bloodtrail is desired aim for bottom 1/3 of vitals

Neil

[ant12hony]

First off we have a thread like this http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=268692 and now we are back to arguing like cats and dogs I wish we all would quit! If the broad head that you have been using be it fixed or expendable is working for you keep using it!! don't worry what other people think because if it kills your deer it is a good broad head!!

Thanks Anthony