MORE THAN ONE ELK WITH A MECHANACLE HEAD
Elk
This question is for those of you that have killed multiple elk with mechanical heads. I have always swore I would never use one for elk, but I am debating trying it this year. So for those of you that have killed a number of elk with them, what are your thoughts and what mechanicals you feel are the absolute best for bigger animals like elk? Thanks.
I have used vortex heads on 20 elk, a moose a buffalo and multiple African game. Too bad they are out of production. Do your research and pick a solid head and place it properly.
I used the Ulmer Edge Stainless Steel head last year and may or may not use them again this year because they've been discontinued... But the bull I shot last year left a world class blood trail after a frontal shot... Not exactly what you were looking for but that's my experience...
Though I do not condone it. If I had to use a mech it would probably be a Killzone. Read a thread about a guy who's taken 3 bulls with them.
Rocket steelhead 100's for me.
I used Rocket Steelheads for a number of years and I took several elk with them including my largest archery bull (NM). They always performed flawlessly and I never had any issues with them. They fly great and penetrated very well.
That being said...I now use Slick Trick standard heads. Like I said, I never had a single issue with the Rockets and could use them again but I think a fixed blade is a better idea. The Slick Tricks fly great and penetrate great as well. With the Slick Tricks I no longer worry about losing KE with entry and dont have to worry about the blades deploying in flight (even though I never had issues with the Rockets).
For me is boils down to the KISS principle.
Best of luck.
A guy I hunt with has taken a truckload of elk, at least 15 or more with Spitfires. I've never been on a tracking job with him. They all went down quick.
Shaner, how many pounds are you pulling and arrow weight?
I have killed multiple bulls with the Spitfire 125. On all but the last bull, they produced more blood and quicker kills than any fixed head I have used. The last bull was hit at roughly 10 yards and just under the spine. He traveled several hundred yards with not much blood. I believe the 1 1/2" dia 3 blade is the reason he's in my freezer.
Over the years I've killed bulls with satellite, savora, rocky mt, innerloc, wasp, muzzy, slick trick, Spitfire, and thunderheads. The only two I now use are thunderhead 125 and Spitfire 125, depending on the state I'm hunting. I will give up blade strength for the better blood and faster kills I get with the mechanical but, I also understand shot placement is a priority. I shoot 60# with a 420 gr arrow.
Bob u had luck on that bull !!
I would look at the rage SS, i will stick with exodus but i always have mechs on standby
Spitfires and Vortex on several Bulls. Longest shot was 53 yards for a double lung kill.
Friends and I have taken nine bulls with Rocket Steelheads. Some were 100 grain and some 125 grain but all penetrated well and held up well.
Every head works perfect with the perfect shot. Heck a blunt will kill any animal in 8-10 seconds, shot with a complete pass-through both lungs. But in my experience a non-perfect shot requires a solid, sharp BH. Now I don't try for a marginal shot and for me is have been 1 in about 15 animals. But I plan for one.......no expandables for me.
Right on Buck Watcher! Anything with a point and some kinetic energy behind it can kill an animal.
In a pinch I can eat a steak using a butter knife to slice it up. But they invented steak knives for a reason.
I'm sure we have all got by using many different tools as a hammer too.
Nobody ever talks about the ones that got away.
If I may ask Shaner... if after swearing you would never try one, is there a reason you are now considering it?
Last... I don't judge anyone for their choices. I just think there's a better tool for the job when it comes to bigger game.
rocket steelhead XL is what I use. they are rated for grizzly bear hunting. I have killed three elk with them, two large bulls, and they have had an entrance and exit hole each time and they died quickly. the thing I love about them besides being deadly is the arrow flight, perfect.
"Nobody ever talks about the ones that got away."
Nobody's ever lost one with a fixed head, right MP? ;-)
Just because someone lost one that was shot with a mech doesn't mean they lost it because it was shot with a mech.
For every animal hit with a less than desirable shot and lost due to broadhead design (fixed or mech), there was probably an animal recovered due to broadhead design.
Not that this argument isn't getting old or anything... :-)
Yes MW obviously they have. But I think they are more likely to openly discuss it. We see those threads on here all the time. But I can't really recall anyone telling about unrecovered game shot with heads with moving parts.
Cmon Bou... how does that saying go?
I think it goes...."when the shot of a lifetime hinges on your broadhead, use a broadhead you have the most confidence it."
...or something like that. ;-)
MP I have a near loss. Only reason it was found was b/c of snow. Otherwise not a chance in hell. Shot placement was not the issue. Rage
I shot another at an already dying deer at maybe 20yds got exit hole, but not complete pass through. Spitfire.
Overall my experiences did not convey confidence in mechs.. and these were whitetails, not elk. When my arrow hits an elk I don't want luck or possibilities, I want exposed razor sharp steel cutting.
Looks like this thread is already turning the direction we all knew it would.
Midwest... you're a good sport! :-)
I have to admit.. I have successfully pounded nails in with screwdrivers, pipe wrenches... and even rocks and I was confident that I would eventually get the job done. haha
I think it goes...."when the shot of a lifetime hinges on your broadhead, use a broadhead you have the most confidence it."
Nope goes like this...
"When the shot of a lifetime hinges on your broadhead, don't use a broadhead with hinges."
...I think.
I've never shot anything with a mech other than a pile of turkeys. Hard to argue with guys like Cazador and W.Bob above, though.
I've shot a couple with spitfires.... and seen a bunch killed with those little steelheads...but also seen a few lost.
After seeing something over 50 elk shot with an arrow I like a good strong Coc fixed head now. It seems to me that design will catch something the bigger mech heads can't reach..and is more likely to get 2 holes- which I like.
I can't think of an elk I've shot with the COC heads that made it over 100yds. Plus they don't know they have been hit.....those mech heads get them moving.
I know that most guys like the mechanicals for their field point like flight. But if you look at the Magnus web site they have a video of using their Buzz Cuts at 100 yards.
As you can imagine I'm not a mechanical broadhead kind of guy. But even if I was shooting wheels, I probably wouldn't use them. Sure they open great 99 X out of 100, but I know who would get #100.
Remember that elk are more than just big deer. Use what you think is best, but for me, I rely on "Occams Razor".
Occams razor is a philosophical argument that states that in most circumstances the simplest solution is the best.
TBB
These threads seem to always turn into a debate on the merits of mechanicals vs fixed blade, but thats not what the original question was. I work on a large ranch where we have about 25 bow hunters each year so I've had the opportunity to witness and speak with a lot of guys after an archery hit on an elk. I've seen a lot of elk recovered and a lot of elk lost after being hit with fixed and mechanicals. The only real correlation seems to be shot placement. I will say, however, in response to the original question, that the only mechanical I've seen used that has never resulted in a lost animal is the Grim Reaper. I realize that from a statistical analysis point of view my sample size is to small to mean much, but I've seen a least a dozen elk killed with them with no losses, that's a better record than I have seen with any other broadhead, fixed or mechanical, so if I had to shoot a mechanical, that's the one I'd choose. Good luck with whatever you choose. If you make a good shot you'll be ok.
Some of the trophy private land and Indian reservations won't accept hunters who insist on using mechanical bhs. At least I have heard that or I believe I have read it here and there, but at this instant I can't cite references.
Now it could be unsubstantiated bias or it could be because they got tired of losing these valuable trophy bulls to mechanicals' poor performance. I have found a dead bull with a mechanical bh and the arrow did not get good penetration. I find it ironic that recurve and longbow guys frequently get complete penetration with bows of about half the KE and of course they are using cut on impact bhs like Zwickeys, Magnus, etc.
Watched my buddy kill a very nice bull at 40 yards last year with a spitfire. We picked up the track and went around 75 yards when we found the arrow. One of the blades did not open. I started to b&T*H at him for using a Mech head when I looked up and saw the Bull 15 yards from the arrow.
Two years ago I shot a nice bull with a G5 Montec with what I thought was a good shot. No blood trail was found and even thou the bull only went a couple hundred yards it took two weeks before he was found. Was is the head. I don't think so. I should have made a better shot.
I have killed my last 17 Bulls with mechanicals. By far the best mechanical for big bodied animals is the new Rage-SS 2 Blade. It is a cut on contact 2 blade that has a smaller 1-1/2" cutting diameter. JMHO
I have watched my friend kill a few elk with the grim reapers. They are at the top of the list if I were to try.
I have shot one small elk with a mech. It was a follow up shot after I got a complete pass through with a wac'em fixed. The bull stood there and I had a wasp jackhammer in the quiver for whitetail with the large cut. Needless to say I hit within an inch of my first shot but the arrow didn't even go in half way! We're the fixed blew through.
If I were to try a mech again it would not have a large cutting diameter.
I think that the right mechanical and bow set up would be fine for elk. That being said, most outfitters recommend against them. Maybe because some guys use them as an excuse not to tune or to make up for poor form...and then they make a bad shot? Ive shot countless pigs in FL with wasp jakhammers and the old vortex heads. Mostly pass throughs and great blood trails. But thats pigs.
Lots of critters been killed with a sharp rock. Use whatever blows you skirt up and don't worry about anyone else. Shaner id say if you want to try mechanicals take the broad head of choice from folks like wapitibob that have killed many elk and test them on smaller game and form your own opinions. If we're choosing teams I'm with MP on this one.
"I find it ironic that recurve and longbow guys frequently get complete penetration with bows of about half the KE and of course they are using cut on impact bhs like Zwickeys, Magnus, etc."
What's the point here? I would bet more elk are lost due to poor shots than issues with expandibles. I lost a bull last year using a slick trick. I thought I ten ringed him, but turned out that wasn't the case. Do I blame the broadhead? I guess if it was an expandible I would have.
How about that bull I shot 8-10 years back with a Wensel Woodsman out of a longbow. I lost that one too. It must have been the broadhead. No, it was a crappy shot. Speaking of Zwickey's, I lost a real nice bull about 15 years ago with a Zwickey tip arrow weighing somewhere around 600 grains. It must have been the broadhead......... Once again, nope, it was a crappy shot.
My experience around elk tells me if you hit them where you're supposed to, they go down quicker than anything. If you don't, they are the worst and I've yet to see a broadhead make up for crappy shot placement on an elk but my sample size is only about 30ish animals or so take that for what it's worth.
Shot placement trumps all in my experience with just about anything. How you get there is up to you.
When I hunted White Mountain Apache Res. for a few years in the early-mid 2000's mechanicals were banned. Not certain I saw it in writing but that was the word in camp at the pre hunt meeting.
Having shot ~70 animals with MBH's (including a couple of elk), I have come to the conclusion you need to match the head to the animal and hunt within your own limits. As stated above, shot placement trumps all. I have a short draw length at 27.5" which limits the energy I can generate, and have come to the conclusion that I am best served with using fixed bladed heads on bigger animals (elk, moose). If I had a 30" draw length, I'd probably come to a different conclusion - but regardless I wouldn't use a larger cutting diameter MBH on elk.
I wouldn't put any credence into the theorization of folks who have never shot MBH's about the failure risk. I've shot far more animals with MBH's but had about the same # of "failures" with fixed blade heads as I have with mechanicals. From that one could form a narrative that MBH's are more reliable than fixed, but that is not what I am suggesting. It just so happens all 4 BH failures I have experienced were issues with the material the head was made of and had nothing to do with the design - or whether the design required blade actuation.
"MORE THAN ONE ELK WITH A MECHANACLE HEAD"
Or none... ever! ;)
Had to say it!
Mechanicals are more forgiving when you need to take that 100 yard shot!
;-)
6 points, sorry I missed your question. I shoot 76 pounds and my arrows are around 500-550 grains. Can't quite remember. I shoot 125 grain heads. Thanks everyone for the replies.
"Mechanicals are more forgiving when you need to take that 100 yard shot! ;-)"
You're right about that one! Lol
Shaner, depending on your velocity (assuming its high for 76#) you're shooting w/ far more energy than the avg joe. As long as you're ethical w/ shot distance I think you'll be fine w/ any proven mech. But I'd still shoot a fixed :D
Never mind me.... I thought somebody was pimpin' a new high tech elk deke.....
rocket stealhead
MBH are far more ethical for 90% of hunters on 90% of elk hunts.
"What's the point here? I would bet more elk are lost due to poor shots than issues with expandibles."
The point is obviously that mechanicals compared to cut on impact broadheads penetrate less. Lack of sufficient penetration can be a problem on elk. The are big animals and getting sufficient penetration is a valid issue.
Yes, I would also bet more elk are lost to poor shots than issues which mechanicals. But it's a big enough issue that some outfitters won't allow mechanicals for trophy elk hunts. Are they biased? I would say it's probably based on their considerable experience.
Here's an example of the penetration difference in a fairly good mechanical (Ramcat) compared to a fairly good cut on impact brooded (R!) on a wild boar freshly killed carcass. In MDcrazyman's broadhead test you can see pics of some mechanicals (Rage, etc) and other very questionable designs (FAA toxic) that got obliterated during his testing.
video: http://www.redriverbroadheads.com/. That's a substantial difference. And I don't think the R1 is even that great a design due to it's vented design.
My opinion is if you're going to use a mechanical on elk you better use a really good one that you have tested and also use a setup with good KE. However, a longbow guy with low KE will probably get great penetration using a simple Zwickey or other well designed cut on impact broadhead (ABowyer, Grizzly, etc.).
"Yes, I would also bet more elk are lost to poor shots than issues which mechanicals. But it's a big enough issue that some outfitters won't allow mechanicals for trophy elk hunts. Are they biased? I would say it's probably based on their considerable experience."
This fact is fact enough that should sway any intelligent person's mind.... but then again you must be equipped to be swayed. ;)
Is the question, "will they kill an elk"? Or is it " are they the best choice for elk hunting"?
Personally, I think we should choose the best head to handle the game in question. All heads have the potential to kill an elk. A .22 will too, but probably the .300 Win. mag is a better choice.
If I used one it would be a rocket steelhead. Tremendous success on big Canadian white tails but I've stepped it up to fixed for elk. But if I used one that's what it would be
9 for 9 on elk with ulmer edge.(my partners and I) , no lost animals. Great penetration. We all use 70# bows with 420 total arrow weight or more. 0 for 1 on elk with Rage Hypodermic. Hope this answers your question. (Also 3 for 3 with Montecs FYI)
I have had terrific results with the 125 grain,3 blade Vortex Mini Max. That might have been my favorite elk head ever. I've had good results with the Spitfire also.
The last elk I killed was unfortunate to have been the victim of poor shot placement. That arrow was tipped with a 125 grain Magnus Stinger. The tracking job was long, but the first shot killed the bull. I'm not confident one of my mech heads would have allowed me to recover that bull. The truth is, I shouldn't have taken that shot. Even so, a mech head might have been more forgiving of my mistake and impacted the bull at a better spot? Conversely, if the mech head had hit the bull where my Magnus did, I'm not sure I could have found the elk?
This is and has always been a very subjective topic. The two fundamental truths are these: 1) Shot placement is more important than anything else 2) Ensure your blades are razor sharp
Rocket Steel Head 100 here, got a ton on close out so I'll be shooting them for some time!
In this broadhead test on fresh deer skin/shoulder blade/fat the cut on impact broadheads (VPA two blade and G5 Montec) got approx. 400% more penetration than the mechanical tested (Rage). Shot from a 63# compound.
In fact, the cut on impact broadheads got a lot more penetration than when the mechanical bh missed the shoulder blade and just got skin/fat/foam!
I want to say haha! but it's not so funny maybe on a big bull.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2qrtMIy5TE
All do respect, but the only true test would be shooting into ballistic gelatin. I also believe that a coc head will get more penetration than a chisel. But also believe that a coc head will not penetrate certain parts of a should blade or bone as well as a chisel tipped head. It's hard to cut bone and much easier to bust through it. I also don't believe that the arrow other than the weight helps with penetration.. The reason I said about the arrows is I see ad's that state that their arrow out penetrate others. Ed
14 bulls over 17 years here in CO. Probably 8 or 9 with mechanicals. NAP Spitfires or Scorpions. Heavy arrows, 70lb draw. Proper hit renders exactly the same results. Improper hit location does the same. I prefer mechanicals with smaller cut diameter....
There was a video of a guy using hide and a pressure gauge on a press illustrating how much more energy it takes a forward deploying bh to penetrate the hide. One mbh broke the arrow shaft before it punched through the hide. I have posted this in the past (years).. it is by far the best demonstration of how inefficient mbh's truly are.
Shooting sh*t to show penetration is more fun than acquiring significant empirical data. I can't remember ever shooting an animal that mimicked the characteristics of a cinder block or steel drum, or even ballistic gel for that matter. Maybe ballistic gel wrapped w/ hide of some sort would be best, but where is the fun and destruction w/ that set up???
"There was a video of a guy using hide and a pressure gauge on a press illustrating how much more energy it takes a forward deploying bh to penetrate the hide. One mbh broke the arrow shaft before it punched through the hide. I have posted this in the past (years).. it is by far the best demonstration of how inefficient mbh's truly are."
Did he try that test with any bullets to see how much energy it took to force one through the hide? I hope not, because he would likely have come to the conclusion you could not possibly kill an animal with one.
The salient point here is that using a static test to extrapolate the performance of a BH under dynamic conditions reflects a deficiency in the tester on not the broadhead.
Why would you perceive this test as a static test? It is dynamic, slower, but dynamic none the less and it yields measurable data over a consistent relevant medium.
You very well could use bullets to do illustrate the same thing, it would be less relieving, but if it would satisfy the ego of matt I'm sure it can be done.
... it would be less revealing
The test you've cited has an obvious flaw in the test methodology, and you've gone so far as to cite it in support of the test's conclusions. Have you ever seen an arrow shaft break because of the resistance by an animal's hide exceeded its structural integrity? I haven't, and I bet not a guy on this site his either. The conclusions of any test which shows that is flawed insofar as being a reasonable proxy for what we would expect in the field.
Do you think this guy could re-run the test and see how many inches of dirt penetration on the far side of the animal are lost due to the head profile? That might be more interesting and relevant.
I have never shot an elk and my gut instinct tells me that my setup would have zero issues driving a spitfire through a bull or at least full penetration. That being said, I am taking the most conservative advice from the majority of elk hunters and plan to use Shuttle T's. I do however plan to really give the Spitfires a run on deer. I really like that head and I think for deer, antelope, bears and such it may be hard to beat.
It certainly would not be more relevant, maybe more interesting, but that is the major flaw w/ bh testing. It is more interesting and entertaining than viable info. The more variables you introduce the less credible the findings. What I find most off putting about your argument is you are criticizing the methodology w/out even seeing the demonstration, yet condoning less methodical testing. Unless you've seen it and can post a link for us.
I remit the broken arrow shaft statement, I think that was another test about the old conical bh's.
The test quoted clearly illustrates the fact that forward deploying BH's require far more energy than a coc bh to penetrate an animal's hide, and it is done w/ measurable data in PSI.
I like this thread better now that I bowed out.
