HuntingBry

5 shot, I know some people question the validity of shooting a head through some of the mediums you use in your tests, but I agree with you that those tests are valuable in finding out how a head will hold up in less than ideal shooting situations.
I'm glad CG came on here and informed us of his experience because it is information like this that will help others in the future. While 5 shot's tests are useful, the only test that really matters is how a product performs on game in a hunting situation. I use Snypers and love them, but I definitely know they have their limitations and would be hesitant to use them on larger game.

Silent, you crack me up man. I love when you get involved in these debates because your sassy comments are a riot. The way you talk, if you had half the knowledge you think you have you would be designing the next bow that would change the industry.<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> That isn't meant as an insult, but it's obvious you put your own knowledge on a higher plain than everyone else here despite the fact that you know nothing of their background. I don't know if you are really that confrontational or if you just like getting a rise out of people (which is what I suspect), but keep it up it always puts a smile on my face.

PABowhntr

5shot,

Do me a favor and fire some broadheads into a 2x6. That was a humbling experience for me...<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Kanga

Has any body thought that it was just a dud head that slipped through their quality control.
If you can send the head back and explain what happened on the shot in detail.
I am positive that they will look into it and most likely send a replacement head.

silentassassin

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> but it's obvious you put your own knowledge on a higher plain than everyone else here despite the fact that you know nothing of their background. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

I am not trying to sound egotistical but I do feel like I know more than most of the guys that post in here. The background comes from reading their posts of the last couple of years. There are several guys in here that when they talk I listen, whether I agree with them or not I respect what they have to say. Then you have some that have a fair amount of knowledge but not really enough to add anything to the conversation yet they jump on the bandwagon and add their 1/2 cents. Then you have guys that know plenty but they don't offer advice(because half of the time the guy you're giving advice too thinks he knows more than you anyway) they just read and keep their mouth shut until someone starts to profuse such haneous BS that they simply can't take it anymore. I mean half the posts I know what the response is going to be by the same group of individuals before I ever read it, every post everytime it is posted. I mean if those guys are trying to build up their number of posts that is one thing but please quit beating the &quot;you can shoot a judo point through a Sherman Tank if your bow is tuned properly&quot; crap to death and the &quot;you can't shoot the world's sharpest broahead through a sheet of paper crap unless your bow is tuned&quot;.

While we're at it will someone defined &quot;tuned&quot;. There are Olypmic Archers shooting bows that are &quot;tuned&quot; to get the best groups possible. But they are getting one inch tears when you shoot through paper. Well if you are getting one inch tears you may be getting the best groups but you sure aren't getting the best penetration. So by tuned everyone must mean Paper Tuned because I know of no better indication of fish tailing or eratic flight(the keys to penetration). I know of ways to &quot;tweak&quot; groups but no better way of indicating flaws in arrow flight(the paper don't lie). So for my hunting equpment &quot;tuned&quot; means paper tuned and then tuning my arrows and adjusting my sights accordingly. Not tinkering with my rest until my braodheads hit wher my field point do. I don't shoot at deer with field points if they both hit where they are supposed to then that is fine, if they don't then that is fine too, as long as I know my arrows are flying straight and transferring their KE in a straight line through the animal. As opposed to an arrow that is in the middle of a fish tail on impact that hits and turns it's KE into momentum that is transferred into a different direction. That's just what I believe after all of my years of trying and reading and listening. You know what they say confidence is the key<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Protect your hunting rights, &quot;Spay or neuter a liberal.&quot;

HuntingBry

Silent, I agree that there are times when I know what the responses will be before reading a post. A perfect example is the &quot;Should I buy and 'X' brand bow?&quot; post. I know there are going to be 20 replies saying &quot;Go to a pro shop and shoot as many bows as possible and pick what feels best to you.&quot; While that is good advice, I'd bet half the time the person still buys 'X' brand bow because they want to be in the &quot;in&quot; crowd or whatever.
On the tuning thing I also agree that proper arrow flight is essential to good penetration. I think that paper tuning is a good indicator of proper arrow flight, but is not the only indicator. For example, I have had cases where I was getting bullet holes in paper, but when I tried fixed blades (which I don't know why I bother because I always come back to mech.s for deer anyway) I couldn't get consistent groups. That indicates a flight problem to me. After making some minor adjustments the broadheads grouped, albeit not with my field points, but that is another story altogether. Then I went back to the paper and was still getting bullet holes. So, you can be getting bullet holes but still need some fine tuning to work the bugs out. If you get a chance check out Easton's tuning guide. That thing has a ton of tuning tips in addition to paper tuning that you may find helpful. Some of it you may not find useful, but it's interesting nonetheless.

silentassassin

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If you get a chance check out Easton's tuning guide. That thing has a ton of tuning tips in addition to paper tuning that you may find helpful. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> I apreciate that huntingbry but I have read through the Easton tuning guide several differnt times. My point was more along the lines off if you are group tuning and you have to move your arrow rest into a position that causes you to not get bullet holes then I will try and fix the arrows and the broadheads not the bow.

Protect your hunting rights, &quot;Spay or neuter a liberal.&quot;

HuntingBry

I see. I too never understood the logic behind paper tuning and group tuning your bow and then changing your rest so that the broadheads hit with the field points. It would seem to me that after doing that your bow wouldn't paper tune correctly anymore. I would think that if you are getting nice tight groups with your broadheads, but they aren't hitting with your field points it would make sense just to change your sights. I don't know. I guess that's why I love mechanicals. I get my bow so it's throwing darts and then make sure the mechs hit the same spot and I'm good to go. I guess sometimes we make it harder than it has to be.

BOWFANATIC

5shot , Your broadhead tests are great! Keep em coming!

I read a broadhead review in a bowhunting mag just recently that had some of the same testing procedures that you use.

Too severe? Nah!

&quot;Nocked,cocked & ready to rock&quot;

schmalts

Man you guys got me spooked. I was all prepared to take some snpers into the elk country in 2 weeks and now i dont know. I have been down in the basement all night trying to figure out my bow tuning problems and took a break to read a few things hear and post a problem i have with my bow. I would like to say i e-mailed bruce Barry personally and asked him what head i should use on elk with the 69lb of ke and he said to use the snypers. I may just go back to my old trilock SS heads that i used for years, but never get a good bloodtrail due to the small size. Now i am rally spooked. What to do?

Antler Eater

Wow, take a few days off to go elk hunting and things get interesting while your gone...story of my life.

While I do feel the Snyper is a good mechanical, if I absolutely had to shoot a mech on elk, the Snyper wouldn't be my first choice. The reason I feel this way comes from an experience I had last fall.

I should preface my experience by saying that I too shot the snypers into plywood, steel drum, etc.. All the testing indicated that it would perform very nicely on whitetails. Early in the season I took a doe with a snyper. The shot wasn't one of my best as it got the liver and one lung. I followed an adequate blood trail into the corn and found the doe in short order. She was laying down in the corn row but she wasn't dead. I could have left and came back later but that seemed cruel to me seeing that she was laboring to breath. To make a long story short the follow up shot put an end to her but the tip of the head was curled over like the toe of a court jester's shoe. The head hit nothing but bone and did not completely pass through the animal.

I can easily accept CG's description of his friends experience and I am not really surprised by the outcome. There is no doubt in my mind that the tip of the head broke off on the way in. If there is any surprise in this saga it is that CG's friend got as much penetration as he did.

On the flip side I have a buddy that blew comletely through an elk last year shooting 54 pounds of KE. Of course he was using a fixed blade head.