If so, you have plenty of energy to use a 3 or 4 blade head if that’s what you want.
A 45# compound will probably be able to send a similar mass weight arrow much faster than a 60# or even 70# longbow.
For reference, I like 3- and 4- blade heads and have killed lots of critters up to elk and moose with 3-blade Snuffers on 425 to 550 grain arrows off of 55# to 60# longbows. Have had quite a few complete pass throughs on elk with 425-450 gr arrows and 3-blade heads through the ribs.
For bigger animals like bison, I have used 2-blade heads and increased FOC and arrow mass. First animal I shot with my homemade longbow was a bison and the arrow was 25 yards on the other side of him after the shot. Cut, but did not break ribs on both sides. Arrow was a Carbon Express with a Magnus 125 2-blade on a 125 grain insert and weight tube - total arrow weight was over 780 grains.
Try tuning up an stiffer spine arrow with a heavier point weight to your lower draw weight bow. Maybe even use the same arrows that you were using for 60#s with heavier point weight up front and you will be happy with the results. Today’s broadhead selection is amazing for heavyweight (200+ gr) 2- and 3- blade heads.
Don’t be afraid of going up to 300 grains or more up front!
Why be afraid to go retro?
Even at 50# you have way more energy than my trad set up and should have no penetration issue with a 3 or 4 blade head with a good design.
If 2 blades without a bleeder can in some way allow that arrow to slip through tissue easier...I'm going to keep using them. All my elk have been killed with 2 blade heads. I don't need a foot-wide blood trail, to recover a bull...just a steady one.
They work for me, but everyone should use whatever they've had success with. No need to re-invent the wheel.
There was so little difference in the penetration that it was almost too close to determine with the additional blades.
I was already a believer in the benefit of the third blade, since it opens a triangular cut instead of a slit, making a decent blood trail more likely and one closed from the sifting of the hide during animal movement less so. But I was also strongly in favor of the "two holes are better than one" theory, so I wanted the best penetration without giving up too much in cut area to achieve it. The test confirmed for me that the three-blade head I had chosen was probably the best compromise for me, and I've been very satisfied with them over the years. The 50% gain in cut area per inch of penetration over a head of equal size in a two-blade, plus the ability of a small but extremely hard tip to penetrate bone without curling, seem to me to be well worth the slight extra resistance of a third blade to the goal of a passthrough.
Still shooting those old TH125's and still convinced they may be the best of all time when all factors are considered. Now that I'm 74 and shooting a bit less draw weight, I still consider the extra blade to be worth the very small penetration loss. I shoot a little more arrow weight to increase my penetration with the slower arrow, and limit my shot distance to minimize the effect of the slower arrow on shot placement.
For lower poundage compounds I have been impressed with the performance of 3-blade Woodsman Elite put out by 3-Rivers Archery and the 3-blade VPA’s. Both are well built, fly well and penetrate game. I’m shooting 52# Elite bow so I am not a “speed demon” by any stretch of the imagination.
I agree, I like the 3rd blade for an extra slash to increase chances for blood drainage.
In the internal tissues (with the possible exception of Liver),things tend to pull away from the cut. Heavy muscle does, too, when it contracts. But with the blade parallel to the grain, basically you don’t really cut through anything.
One problem with 3-blades is a bone hit. Not ribs, but heavier bone. If a 2-blade strikes the edge of a heavy bone, the opposite edge will cut sideways to create a path. A three-blade presents a lot of resistance to that “sliding around” the bone, since now the pressure of blade on bone is trying to push the broad sides of two blades sideways through flesh.
A big problem with a lot of modern heads is blade angle. The Hellrazors are a good example; I didn’t get a clean pass-through from a fast (Bowtech Commander) #50 compound when I hit high below the spine on a pretty small doe at Gimmie distance. A part of that is the blade angle/ length:width ratio, which on that head is 1:1. 45 degrees. 1.5X as steep as the 3:1 ratio espoused by Howard Hill. And that was a man who drew some poundage!
I cannot disagree with the recommendation for the Thunderhead, though. Awfully tough to beat, and if somebody told me I could never use anything else, I’d never give it a moment’s thought.
That said, I like 2-blades for Trad bows, and am planning to go to Aces soon. I’m just not that happy with the edges I’m able to put on the heads I have now, and I’m hoping that a different steel and I will get on better..
