Bowsite.com

This issue was not initiated by the CBA or by the CDOW/CWC.

This person claimed that, according to his personal research, that MBHs caused an increase in woundings and loss. That bowhunters, looking for faster arrow speeds and using lighter arrows so that they can shoot farther and faster, and he stated, as far as 60,70 and 80plus yards.

He claimed that MBHs do not always function properly.

While I do not use MBHs, for any big game, I do acknowledge that many of the newer MBHs have been redesigned to "cut on impact" and to open, regardless of the angle of the shot and that a fair number of bowhunters are using them with good results, even while elk and or moose hunting.

He stated that he wanted to develope a CWC, "citizens petition", TO BAN MBS. If this petiton was moved forward by the Commisson, it would go through a two step process to gain public opinion. The Commission may want this worked out , through the DOW staff, and I am sure they would contact and consult the CBA, as the CBA has in the past, polled its membership for their opinions. AT this time, the CBA and its members do not have an offical opinion.

I want to speak to only those of you that have actually had experience with MBS, especially for elk and muledeer.

What have been your experiences with MBH, good or bad as far as penetration, blade functioning, and the ability of these broadheads to over-all perform, compared with fixed broadheads. ,

Another question, compared with the earlier MBHs, have the new generation MBH made a positive difference in your choice to use them?

Thanks, in advance. Paul CBA

If so, I've seen no difference given shot placement. Good shot placement equals good overall results and vice versa.

With the large number of very good quality fixed blade Broadheads on the market these days, that bows can be easily tuned to shoot just like a field point, I personally do see the value is using something that is not 100% foolproof. The bigger the animal the more chance there is for problems as thicker hides and bones will cause MBHs to break and shear off blades. Many states have already outlawed these type of heads from what I have read, which should be a easy thing to research and find out how many states have done so.

I will admitt that I have tried MBHs on Turkey's and found that they created more problems than they solved IMHO. First depending on the angle of the shot one blade could open before the others causing the head and arrow to change the angle upon impact to where the arrow does not penetrate. In this instance the one blade did cut some feathers and into some meat as it changed direction and went upward thru the top of the back, injuring the bird but did not enter the body cavity. This was on a 8-10 yard shot shooting 70+# and a 530 grain arrow. I have seen heads that others have shot that went thru an animal without opening, also some that opened upon contact but then sheared the blades off when they hit ribs.

I beleive that even the newest MBHs with the cut on contact tip, would not pass the Colorado Broadhead definition if they did not open. Although I have not measured any of these heads to verify this, maybe some else can tell us how many of these heads have a cut on contact tip that is at least 7/8" wide. This one thing may be enough to technically make them illegal in Colordao. Actually depending on your interpritation of the Colorado Reg's they may already be illegal, "Hand-held bows, must use arrows with a broadhead having a min. 7/8-inch outside diameter or width and min. 2 steel cutting edges. Each cutting edge must be in the same plane for the entire lenght of the cutting surface."

Flame away on me if you want these are just my observations and views on this subject.

I am trying to gain some information from bowhunters who have used MNH, for some time, and can develope a good opinion about their use, for big game and with good or bad success.

If MBHs become an issue, it will be public opinion that will support or not support their use. If banned in Colorado, that concensus might be that they are not good for the sport of big game hunting. Some other states have banned their use for big game and developed those regulatons a few years back when MBH were first developed and more controversial. I wonder if they would have been banned if the "more modern, updated versons," would have been around, as today.

Thanks, Paul

So far I've shot Elk, antelope, Whitetail, Mouflon, Warthog, feral hog, impala, wildebeest, Waterbuck, and a smattering of other stuff with Mechs and I love them. I alternate between NAP spitfires (Mech) and NAP Nitron (fixed) in my quiver, so have managed some good comparison. So far I have noticed shorter tracking jobs, but poorer penetration with the Mechs - on larger animals, I typically get to the off skin, or just thru it, but don't get zip-thru pass-thru shots, which I am OK with. Light-skinned game I notice very little difference in penetration as a pass thru is a pass thru in my book. Wound channels are much more impressive with Mechs.

Have not had any issues with broken blades, failure to open, etc. Have had some issues with reuse and replacement blades as they are never as tight as fresh heads, so they are typically a single use head for me- target heads after that. But the ones I use (fold back type held by pressure on the blade) rarely open accidentally in the field.

Mechs aren't a cure all for bad tuning, I have noticed mine will fly the same as 1 in diameter heads, so if my bow is out of tune enough to throw them off, they'll throw the mechs off.

I would be very disappointed to see them banned - I think they are much better than shooting something at the bare minimum as far as cutting diameter (which is what people will turn to meet the desire to shoot further and faster as mentioned above). Regulating out a product to try and cover for poor prep or poor decision making is a bad move IMO.

Anecdotal evidence that supports my thoughts, I shot 2 warthogs last year in Africa, one with a Mech, one with a 1" fixed in almost the exact same spot (about an inch behind the elbow when broadside). On a warthog I later found out that puts it in the liver as they are constructed with the vitals far forward. The one shot with the Mech was recovered, the other was tracked for about a mile and a half and never found. IMO the extra 1.5 inches of cutting edge made the difference causing more blood loss thru the liver.

I switched to a fixed blade (Slick Trick) this last year. They shoot just as good for me, which is why I switched.

I think some people take longer range shots with MBH than they should. They can be used as a crutch. However, I feel with the changes in modern fixed blade heads, we will see the same thing (i.e. longer shots by some)from the "newer fixed blade heads. I think it all comes down to your personal ethics. Some people take shots they never should then look to blame equipment failures instead of themselves.

As an example, I have a hunting video where a guy shoots an elk very high and way too far back. The video narrator quickly blames MBH for the prolonged death of the elk. It was shot placement and the hunter not the MBH.

Some people will never accept MBH into bow hunting (just like some won't accept compound bows). It is personal choice, but I think MBH can and do kill many big game animals every year. I think there are very few times when a MBH failure is to blame and not the shot placement/hunters ethics. I think the MBH failure rate is not much higher than fixed blades.

All that said, I switched to fixed blades to avoid any possible mechanical failure.

Just my .02

The only thing I have noticed is that this head does not penetrate as well as the fixed heads I have used, but penetrates enough to get the job done. My biggest bull elk, an official 358 P&Y, went 15 yards before laying up. Arrow broke a rib on the way in and slipped between the ribs on the far side, stopping just short of poking through the hide. Penetration is less because it is cutting more tissue as it passes through the animal.

I have taken one bear, two NM bull elk, three Nebraska Whitetail, one AZ Coues buck, one NM mule deer buck, five javelina, one CO Antelope and a coyote with this type head. I have not lost any animals hit with it.

This head has 7/8 inch of exposed, cut on impact blades that are held in place with a simple O-ring. I have never had trouble with this head deploying accidently in the quivers I have used.

I started out shooting fixed heads, Thunderhead 125, and only switched to the mechanical out of curiousity. I was so impressed with the damage it caused that I never went back.

I had no problems tuning my bow to shoot the fixed head, so don't brand me as "another one of those lazy mech users". I just liked how they performed. I don't feel that I am risking mechanical failure either, as this particular head is pretty simple.

One drawback to the mechanical head is the ability to reliably shoot through the netting on my blind when antelope hunting. I don't think I want to risk it. I am using a fixed head for that purpose, should I ever get the opportunity!

Just wanted to get my two cents in support of mechanicals.

Thanks, Paul, for compiling this info.

This mechanical debate is IMHO absurd.

in the last six years I have killed 4 elk and one whitetail with mechanicals. Every one went down within 40 yards, most within site. I honestly believe that would not have happened to all of them with a conventional head.

I've seen a more a lot of good kills lately with mechs. They are extremely effective. The naysayers are just that. Seems the past few years the guys I've helped track there wounded and lost animals were using mostly convential broadheads too (but that's just what I have experienced).

Obviously not at "mechanical heads" since they predate compounds...

In my personal experiences, MBHs add a negative that fixed blades do not have. They can and do fail to open occasionally, and they require more kinetic energy to achieve similar penetration to a fixed blade on average.

That said, the big cutting diameters can be devastating when things work as planned. I don't support outlawing them, but I do encourage others to find a fixed blade that works for them. Bowhunting has enough variables without adding one more.

My set-up has pretty low KE and I like to keep things simple, so I they aren't a good fit for me regardless.

Since changing to a MBH EVERY big game animal I have aimed at has been recovered, something I cannot admit to with a fixed BH. I have complete confidence with the MBH I use, and strongly believe they are effective in harvesting big game animals, including moose.

During the year I practice thousands of shots with a field tip, MBH's fly similar to a field tip. Repetative practice with a fixed BH is not practical, My aim/target point changes as much as 6" at 30 yards with a fixed blade from my field point.

Mechanical Broadheads are effective and what I prefer to hunt with.

If your BH's are hitting somewhere different then your field points. This means that your bow is not in tune. There is no reason why a fixed blade should not fly the exact same as your field point. It is all just a matter of tuning.

ANother tip, if to shoot Magnus Bh's. They have a lifetime gaurantee so you can practice with them as much as you want. If they get a little beat up, just send them back for a free replacement.

There does seem to be one minor problem with them such as the blades open in the quiver, simple sulution is to take out the thick 1 inch+ foam and replace w/ 3/8 inch foam so the tip of the head fits in but does'nt contact the blades.(I use the rear deployment MBH)

These BH's are lethal with correct shot placement and should remain legal to hunt with IMO.

I have taken 3 whitetails with MBH's and not one has gone farther than 50 yards, AGAIN SHOT PLACEMENT IS A MUST WITH ANY TYPE OF BH!

This is not an issue the CBA has been exploring but one that is being forced on the CDOW by one individual and they are obligated to follow up on the issue. As I stated earlier, I am sure the cBA will be consulted in the near future about this subject so it is worth gathering some public opinion at this time as I know there are some very experiences bow hunters on this site.

A few years ago there were two hunters in the same area I was hunting. They were both using mechanicals. And, the each wounded two elk apiese and left the four animals to die because they couldn't recover them.

Also, it is it is stated in the regulations that a 35# bow is legal while mechanicals meet the legal requirments as well. The two just don't match.

Yes, I know most archers would never try to hunt with a mechanical and a 35# draw weight bow. But, according to the present regulations, it would be perfectly legal to do so.

Please tell be where that petetion is. I'll sign it in a heartbeat!!!!

Paul: Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention.

The Commission has options, 1. to deny the petition, 2, to accept the petition and pass judgement on the issue and vote to accept it, or 3, to recommend a three step process to gather public input and DOW investigation of the issue.

This is not a written petiton to sign on, but one that can receive public input if the CWC directs it towards a three step process. Paul

The funny part is that I paid a dollar each for those broadheads on a clearance rack at Walmart.

To me this issue is sixes. You can have guys shooting mechanicals that may or may not work but fly well, or you can have the same guys, whose bows aren't (and won't be) properly tuned, flinging fixed blades that are flying all over the place. There will always be some hunter who isn't prepared or proficient and I don't see a reason to restrict those who are.

Even though I don't use them, I don't support outlawing them. If something must be done, let it be a set of rules regarding who can use mechanicals, i.e. kinetic energy minimums or draw weight minimums.

I would still use them on deer-sized game and smaller.

I will probably never use one again on elk.

I tried them one season in order to improve my accuracy. I liked how they flew. I hit a bull broadside at 15 yards with a Snyper, and was dismayed at how far he went before going down. Post-mortem, I was disappointed in two aspects of the mechanical.

1) The blade insert tip that slices on impact was folded over. There is no way this helped penetration (I did not get a pass through). It must have hit a rib going in. I won't use anything other than a chisel or cone tip again.

2) The blades were retracted on the arrowhead that was still inside the elk's chest cavity. As soon as the arrow stopped moving forward, and the shaft started backing out, I think the blades closed back up. This reduced any secondary cutting damage that often occurs when you don't get pass-through. (The shaft and fixed-blade arrowhead can churn inside the animal while it runs, and can bring an animal down quicker than a pass-through shot.)

Lastly, I'm more impressed with the holes a 3 or 4 blade head makes compared to a two-blade head. I know there are probably some 3-blade, chisel-tip, lock-open mechanicals out there, but until they remove the necessity for those rubber bands, I'm still not interested. When I pull an arrow out of the quiver to make a shot, I don't need any surprises like finding out my rubber band has gone missing.

I've shot antelope with MBH - deer and elk with FBH (G5 Montec).

I won't use MBH's - but don't want them banned for those that do want to use them.

I also think there is a great variability between the best and worst BHs on the market and some mechanicals are definitely the worst-of-the-worst.

I think many, if not most, bowhunters choose equipment without a thorough understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of their choices. Any one who chooses a MBH because it flies like a FP is in this category. A BH tipped arrow that doesn't hit where a FP tipped arrow does, is NOT leaving the bow aligned with it's launch path. Using a MBH doesn't fix that. The arrow still oscillates until the fletching stabilizes it or it hits the target. If the latter occurs first, which is entirely likely especially considering the tiny fletching popular today, it hits 'sideways', robbing much of its penetration potential. This is even more critical with a MBH.

Maybe we should be considering at least some restrictions on type of BH depending on type/size of game and on energy/momentum the bow/arrow combination can produce. This, however could get unreasonably complicated and still doesn't address other issues, such as properly tuned bows and reasonable shot distances, which are more important.

Contact Muleyslayer (Marc Smith). I believe he did some work with the DOW regarding mechanicals.

There will always be that small group of "bowhunters" who put a set-up together, don't tune it, and, if they have time, might pull it out to practice a week or so before season. Prohibiting MBH use will have no impact on this group. They will still have a sloppy set-up, with little knowledge of its capabilities, and more importantly, its limitations. I see no reason to limit the equipment choice of responsible and ethical bowhunters.

Are wounding rates any different in Idaho and Washington?

I doubt that this issue would have surfaced because of the lack of scientific data to support higher wounding rates because of MBHs.

Again, this issue surfaced because one individual made it a personal issue----the CDOW/CWC will follow up and I am sure the CBA will be contact. Paul

If you want to regulate anything, it should be bowhunter's ed - use that to teach them what to look for in terminal tackle construction, proper tuning, practicing with your broadheads, knowing your effective range, etc.

YOu should be very careful, you are close to be debateable on this thread. It's really quite unbelievable how some archers can be so uneducated, ignorant or so closed minded on such a hot topic. They continuusly critize me and others for shooting a mechanical, with 2 inch vanes, with a wisker bisquit, no drop away, with a release and using my middle finger as the trigger finger. Their unbelievable comments continuosly question my 40 years of archery hunting, my harvest rates, my abilities to tune a bow, my abilities to shoot and all my 3d and field trophies, belt buckles, and the fact I shoot my bows nearly year round and my personal minimum acceptance practice criteria is to be able to hit 4 out of five 2 and 3/4 inch sticky notes at 40 yards.

Yet, when you even bring up the possibility of hunter education or competency tests for archers, they are the first ones completely against it because in my opinion many of these same so called archers know they wouldn't be able to pass either test. I know because I'm either ahead or behind these same archers at a lot of shoots including most cba shoots where I hear a lot (and way too much ) of arrows banging trees and brush. I have also done the tests in other states and saw the results. Then you hear about all the deer and elk they wound and lose.

Yet, I'm the archer they want in their sights and want to limit by putting some bogus broadhead regulation in for???

Thanks, Paul

Thanks, Paul"

Is that a blessing for open debate, or a warning. ;)

OK, I'll give you two. I do not use these heads myelf, never have, never will. But, I have been involved in 2 situations where the heads failed, or did not perform as one might expect.

First incident. 1999. I'm spending a week working as a grunt/runner/babysitter at Ward/Eichler's antelope camp north of Greeley. A young kid from Illinois raises the red flag, indicating he has shot an antelope. I drive down there to check it out. He tells me he took a quartering away shot, hit the animal just where he aimed, and the antelope runs off, with most of the arrow sticking out. Huh? So we take off in my truck, go find this antelope. Find him real quick, still on his feet. I get the binocs on him, see the broadhead end in the forward stomach area, the fletching end of the arrow dragging the ground. Maybe 1, 2 inches penetration. One blade in the animal, the other blade out. According to the kid, the animal was quartering away, and if so, the arrow was prob just a few inches too far back, but still, it should have passed thru the forward stomach, thru the diaphram and liver, and prob one lung. He did puncture the stomach. End result? We sit in my truck for several hours, waiting for that animal to weaken up enough before the kid eventually moves in to put a second arrow in him.

Second incident. I am hunting elk in Area 20, 3 miles off the road. Packed in. Sunday night. A young kid from Greeley is camped maybe 100 yards from me. We are the only 2 people in this area. Just after dark, he comes walking into my camp, says he hit a good bull 30 minutes earlier close to camp. 20 yard shot, slight quartering away, a few blood spots, can't find the trail, wants help. Based on what he tells me, piece of cake. We should find that bull real quick. Well, we looked, and looked, and looked. No blood, a few hoof prints. Gave it up at 1 AM, back on the faint trail at first light the next morn. Finally found it mid day Monday. Found it 7/8 of a mile from the initial hit! As usual, I did my own autopsy on the animal as we prepare to field dress. The kid was dead on. He hit it tight behind the shoulder. There was a small bloody spot right there behind the elbow, but, NO PENETRATION. No hole into the chest cavity. ??? I get the hide off around that front leg, and find thaat the BH had just nicked the brachial artery. That's the artery that runs down the front leg. Didn't completely sever it, just nicked it. But cut it enough that the artery continued to slowly, slowly bleed. I ask the kid what kind of broadhead he was using. He pulls a mechanical out of his quiver. Am I surprised? No. In one respect, this kid got lucky. He was lucky that I was camped just down the hill. If he had been by himself, he never would have found that bull. He knew that, and thanked me.

Conclusion? In my opinion, both of these animals, if shot with a conventional cut-on-contact head, would have been down and dead within seconds.

IMHO, the larger cutting diameter of the mechanical allowed recovery of this deer despite less than perfect shot execution on my part. Penetration was excellent, blade function was not an issue (even with a hard, quartering angle), and in this particular case, performance may have been better than a smaller diameter FBH would have achieved.

I chose a poor shot selection and gut shot this whitetail doe in Kansas a few years back. She went about 75 yards into a field and layed down. I went back at dark about an hour later and kicked her out of her bed, never to be found. A classic example of how a mechanical broadhead failed me.

I have four examples from the last two years. Two elk, two mule deer. The first deer was with a MBH, a broadside shot, complete pass through, the deer went 15 yards. The second deer was a quartering away shot with a fixed blade, complete pass through, the deer went 500 yards with a poor blood trail. The exit hole was right above the off side elbow in the sideways V of the shoulder bones. That deer took several hours to expire. I wish I would have shot that one with a larger MBH. The two elk are a similar situation. The first bull was with a MBH, broadside, full penetration to the opposite shoulder but not through, the bull went 40 yards. The second bull was with a fixed blade, broadside, complete pass through, the bull went 300 yards. I have not seen any disadvantages with the latest MBH designs and hope that our choices are not limited. I'll need to buy more broadheads for next year and they will probably be mechanicals.

1) A caribou at 7 yrds in AK. 50 lb recurve shooting a carbon arrow. It was a golden BB shot. Behind the front leg as it was extended. When the lag came back the arrow snapped off.( I thought it had bounced) The caribou went about 40 yrds then bonnked. about 8 inches of the arrow was inside his chest cavity. He weighed about 600 lbs..... success

2)A large CT whitetail buck at 22 yrds, 55 lbs recurve and carbon arrow. Unfortunately I hit right where I was looking his shoulder. Mininal penetration, a lot of arrow sticking out. I could not locate arrow or deer over the next 2 days. This makes me wonder????

I am considering heaver arrows.