Heavyweight Broadheads

[Bill V]

This question is for people shooting over 125 grains: What weight do you shoot or want to shoot?
We currently make Iron Will 150 & 210 grain heads, but I'm interested to know what people want for weights.

 

[VarmintSniper30]

A 200gr solid would be really nice so you can buy field points to match

 

[225nontypical]

I love the 150's! I do agree with making them match field points so you can practice with the same weight setup.

 

[SunShine]

To me it’s not the weight but the cutting diameter.

I’m shooting German Kinetic 175’s that cut 2 inches. They have the same cut but beefier weight that I passed on.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GotDraw?]

German Kinetics makes good broadhead, but I respectfully disagree.

Penetration is what matters.

Yes, cutting diameter is important at some level, but if diameter was the most important factor to success we'd all shoot 4" or larger diameter broadheads at any and all game, be it deer, elk, moose, grizzly, cape buffalo... In fact, I have a friend that successfully shoots cheap Chinese mechanicals that are almost 3" diameter for whitetail at close range with his crossbow (he would not use those on bigger animals).

The technical problem I see with the bigger diameter is better logic begins when hunting larger, heavier animals:

1) We don't shoot 4" or 6" diameter broadheads at really big animals because at some level logic dictates that arrow penetration must decrease at some non-linear mathematical power function relative to cutting diameter. Therefore a 2" diameter blade will require far more than 2x the energy than a 1" diameter blade in order to penetrate a similar distance in an animal. If the power function is a square function, then a 2" diameter blade would require 4x as much energy in order to have penetration equal to a 1" diameter broadhead and a 4" diameter blade would require 16x as much energy as a 1" diameter broadhead in order to achieve equal penetration.

2) Furthermore and compounding the problem, big game like Elk or Moose (or bigger) have hides and bones that are several times bigger and stronger than deer. Moose hide is almost 1 1/2" thick, penetrating that and then penetrating a moose rib that is as thick as your wrist requires far more energy than going through a deer, maybe 4x or more energy.

Therefore, if a hunter wants to shoot a 2" blade through seriously big game, he faces a compound problem. The bigger blade will take more energy to penetrate AND the animal has bigger/stronger hide and bones that also need far more energy to penetrate.

Thus, the wider the broadhead, the more the math is increasingly stacked against getting excellent penetration. The wider blade simply must take far more energy to cut through or break tougher hide and bone. Yes, a heavier broadhead will help offset things a bit but if a hunter almost doubles the cutting diameter compared to a more traditional 1" to 1 1/4" diameter, then my thought process is that at some point math and physics must dictate a potentially undesirable outcome.

Therefore, I would argue that penetration matters far more than diameter and I would choose a heavier broadhead at just over an inch in diameter for game bigger than deer. We can argue that we'll shoot a 70 or 80 pound bow or that we'll increase total arrow weight in order to increase momentum in order to offset the 2" diameter, but (all things equal) my perception is that a wider broadhead will not penetrate as well as a more conservative 1" to 1 1/4" diameter.

JL

To me it’s not the weight but the cutting diameter.

I’m shooting German Kinetic 175’s that cut 2 inches. They have the same cut but beefier weight that I passed on.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SunShine]

German Kinetics makes good broadhead, but I respectfully disagree.

Penetration is what matters.

Yes, cutting diameter is important at some level, but if diameter was the most important factor to success we'd all shoot 4" or larger diameter broadheads at any and all game, be it deer, elk, moose, grizzly, cape buffalo... In fact, I have a friend that successfully shoots cheap Chinese mechanicals that are almost 3" diameter for whitetail at close range with his crossbow (he would not use those on bigger animals).

The technical problem I see with the bigger diameter is better logic begins when hunting larger, heavier animals:

1) We don't shoot 4" or 6" diameter broadheads at really big animals because at some level logic dictates that arrow penetration must decrease at some non-linear mathematical power function relative to cutting diameter. Therefore a 2" diameter blade will require far more than 2x the energy than a 1" diameter blade in order to penetrate a similar distance in an animal. If the power function is a square function, then a 2" diameter blade would require 4x as much energy in order to have penetration equal to a 1" diameter broadhead and a 4" diameter blade would require 16x as much energy as a 1" diameter broadhead in order to achieve equal penetration.

2) Furthermore and compounding the problem, big game like Elk or Moose (or bigger) have hides and bones that are several times bigger and stronger than deer. Moose hide is almost 1 1/2" thick, penetrating that and then penetrating a moose rib that is as thick as your wrist requires far more energy than going through a deer, maybe 4x or more energy.

Therefore, if a hunter wants to shoot a 2" blade through seriously big game, he faces a compound problem. The bigger blade will take more energy to penetrate AND the animal has bigger/stronger hide and bones that also need far more energy to penetrate.

Thus, the wider the broadhead, the more the math is increasingly stacked against getting excellent penetration. The wider blade simply must take far more energy to cut through or break tougher hide and bone. Yes, a heavier broadhead will help offset things a bit but if a hunter almost doubles the cutting diameter compared to a more traditional 1" to 1 1/4" diameter, then my thought process is that at some point math and physics must dictate a potentially undesirable outcome.

Therefore, I would argue that penetration matters far more than diameter and I would choose a heavier broadhead at just over an inch in diameter for game bigger than deer. We can argue that we'll shoot a 70 or 80 pound bow or that we'll increase total arrow weight in order to increase momentum in order to offset the 2" diameter, but (all things equal) my perception is that a wider broadhead will not penetrate as well as a more conservative 1" to 1 1/4" diameter.

JL

My point was my 175’s are lighter than 200’s that I own that cut less.

We all know that with more cutting diameter we need more HP to push it.

Let’s play penetration devils advocate. What head do you suppose would out penetrate a German Kinetic Silver Flame ?

We know penetration is aided by Cut on contact heads, check for GK, penetration is aided by sharpness, check for GK. Penetration is diminished by bleeder or multiple blades, again check for GK.

So I deduce, if I was going to try a wide cut diameter head, it would have GK characteristics, hence my choice. Flight was my biggest concern and they fly great. Apples to apples, I don’t know of a higher performance out of a 2 inch cut. 70 pounds out of my Hoyt Carbon Turbo I assure you, penetration is happening DEEP ! Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk