If push came to shove
09-13-2002, 04:33 AM
#52
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: .. NH USA
Posts: 970
RE: If push came to shove
Wow, you guys having fun yet? <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
My thoughts:
I, like others, have been around since long before mechanicals came into existence, and had fair (but not good) luck with the original designs such as the original Pucketts and the Punchcutter. I tried to keep an open mind tho, and later on tried the Spitfires,(yuk) Gold-tips,(ehh) Jakhammers,(ok) and Rockets (best in class). While the newer designs work better than the older designs, after chasing deer for many miles due to incomplete passthroughs with these heads, I have decided to remain with the fixed-blade Wasp Hammer SST,(#1) Muzzy 100,(#2) and Thunderhead 125 (#3)as my heads of choice. (If the Mega 112 was still in existance, it would be my #1 head)
Mechanicals were designed primarily for the "lazy" archer who "didn't have time" to correctly tune their equipment to shoot fixed-blade broadheads, and thus screamed for an "easier-tuning" head. My feelings on this are that if you do not have the time to correctly tune your equipment for the job at hand, You don't have time to be out there hunting!<img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle> Simple and as plain as that. Regardless of whether you have a mechanical OR a fixed-blade head coming out of your bow, it still must be correctly tuned to provide the best flight and deliver the heaviest amount of KE. Doesn't matter if you're shooting a mech or not if the arrow comes out of the bow half-a**ed and hits the deer at an angle! Take the time to tune your equipment, and use the sharpest head that will deliver a complete passthrough, and one that has the toughest construction in case of contact with heavy bone.
That's why I choose fixed-blades, especially the ones above with a "tough" tip. They do not let me down, and are superior in strength-of-construction to any of the aforementioned mechanicals. I always look forward to trying out the "new stuff", but so far they haven't impressed me much over the years with these designs that have to open on contact with the hide. I never heard the "hoopla" about KE like you do today, and it's all due to these heads, IMHO. Just my own thoughts, Pinwheel 12
Edited by - Pinwheel 12 on 09/13/2002 05:45:38
My thoughts:
I, like others, have been around since long before mechanicals came into existence, and had fair (but not good) luck with the original designs such as the original Pucketts and the Punchcutter. I tried to keep an open mind tho, and later on tried the Spitfires,(yuk) Gold-tips,(ehh) Jakhammers,(ok) and Rockets (best in class). While the newer designs work better than the older designs, after chasing deer for many miles due to incomplete passthroughs with these heads, I have decided to remain with the fixed-blade Wasp Hammer SST,(#1) Muzzy 100,(#2) and Thunderhead 125 (#3)as my heads of choice. (If the Mega 112 was still in existance, it would be my #1 head)
Mechanicals were designed primarily for the "lazy" archer who "didn't have time" to correctly tune their equipment to shoot fixed-blade broadheads, and thus screamed for an "easier-tuning" head. My feelings on this are that if you do not have the time to correctly tune your equipment for the job at hand, You don't have time to be out there hunting!<img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle> Simple and as plain as that. Regardless of whether you have a mechanical OR a fixed-blade head coming out of your bow, it still must be correctly tuned to provide the best flight and deliver the heaviest amount of KE. Doesn't matter if you're shooting a mech or not if the arrow comes out of the bow half-a**ed and hits the deer at an angle! Take the time to tune your equipment, and use the sharpest head that will deliver a complete passthrough, and one that has the toughest construction in case of contact with heavy bone.
That's why I choose fixed-blades, especially the ones above with a "tough" tip. They do not let me down, and are superior in strength-of-construction to any of the aforementioned mechanicals. I always look forward to trying out the "new stuff", but so far they haven't impressed me much over the years with these designs that have to open on contact with the hide. I never heard the "hoopla" about KE like you do today, and it's all due to these heads, IMHO. Just my own thoughts, Pinwheel 12
Edited by - Pinwheel 12 on 09/13/2002 05:45:38
09-13-2002, 05:10 AM
#53
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lehigh County PA USA
Posts: 12,157
RE: If push came to shove
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Mechanicals were designed primarily for the "lazy" archer who "didn't have time" to correctly tune their equipment to shoot fixed-blade broadheads, and thus screamed for an "easier-tuning" head.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Pinwheel,
Do you really believe this?
I don't have any form of information to rebutt this statement but I have a hard time believing that this was the reason...or the only reason if you want to take it to that level. I think many of the expandable manufacturers would disagree (at least publicly <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>).
Pinwheel,
Do you really believe this?
I don't have any form of information to rebutt this statement but I have a hard time believing that this was the reason...or the only reason if you want to take it to that level. I think many of the expandable manufacturers would disagree (at least publicly <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>).
09-13-2002, 06:01 AM
#54
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,413
RE: If push came to shove
I agree with Pinwheel. What problem is encountered with fixed blades that mechanicals supposedly fix? It would be planing, which is caused primarily by a poorly tuned bow. Wind can have an effect, but in my experience, not a very big one in typical hunting ranges. In my opinion, an out of tune bow should not be using a mechanical. They depend on good flight to work effectively. If the bow is tuned correctly, then fixed blades will work great. The best mechanicals on the market may work okay with poor tuning, but they're still mechanical, which means they're more prone to failure because of the moving parts.
09-13-2002, 07:00 AM
#55
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 7,571
RE: If push came to shove
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> They depend on good flight to work effectively. If the bow is tuned correctly, then fixed blades will work great. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Strightarrow, I believe that your statement is correct 99% of the time. However, I would like to add that the broadhead needs to also be matched to the correct arrow (all components).
From my previous post:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> For instance, with carbon arrows, I could not get my magnus to fly right because of planning even with no wind. One of the problems, is that I have a 33" draw, and I won't use an overdraw. The only fixed blade broadhead that I could use with my carbons with any type of accuracy was a Muzzy 75 grain, which went against the theory that you have to have a high FOC when using fixed blades and carbons. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
I have been told by other archers with this draw length that this is common for carbon arrows that are 33" long.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The best shaft that works for me is a XX78, 2613 cut to 33". I use a Stos (made by magnus) 145 grain two blade with a 42 grain adapter. My total arrow weight is 700 grains. I also shoot a Parker 70 pound 33" draw bow and get around 80 lbs KE with this setup. Another extremely important point is that I use FOUR 4.75" vanes helical vanes on my arrow. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
Strightarrow, I believe that your statement is correct 99% of the time. However, I would like to add that the broadhead needs to also be matched to the correct arrow (all components).
From my previous post:
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> For instance, with carbon arrows, I could not get my magnus to fly right because of planning even with no wind. One of the problems, is that I have a 33" draw, and I won't use an overdraw. The only fixed blade broadhead that I could use with my carbons with any type of accuracy was a Muzzy 75 grain, which went against the theory that you have to have a high FOC when using fixed blades and carbons. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
I have been told by other archers with this draw length that this is common for carbon arrows that are 33" long.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The best shaft that works for me is a XX78, 2613 cut to 33". I use a Stos (made by magnus) 145 grain two blade with a 42 grain adapter. My total arrow weight is 700 grains. I also shoot a Parker 70 pound 33" draw bow and get around 80 lbs KE with this setup. Another extremely important point is that I use FOUR 4.75" vanes helical vanes on my arrow. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
09-13-2002, 07:21 AM
#56
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,413
RE: If push came to shove
Bob, I agree with you.
When I use the word "tune", I alway think of it as including adjusting draw weight to match arrow spine (which I usually have to do). I shouldn't assume this is understood.
When I use the word "tune", I alway think of it as including adjusting draw weight to match arrow spine (which I usually have to do). I shouldn't assume this is understood.
09-13-2002, 09:20 AM
#57
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: .. NH USA
Posts: 970
RE: If push came to shove
Frank-
Absolutely I believe that statement! Mechanicals came into existence after many archers started to complain that they were not getting proper flight from their fixed-blade broadheads. Why? Two reasons. 1)Because they were either too lazy or dis-interested to take the time to correctly tune their setup or have them tuned! 2)This was multiplied tenfold with the re-invention of the solocam and their early god-awful nock travel, which did nothing to help with the tuning process of fixed broadheads. This in turn created more crying. (Notice mechanicals came into existence at around the same time?) So of course, manufacturers such as Riley Puckett saw the opportunity to capitalize on these issues, and the rest is history. Now here we are several years later crying about incomplete passthroughs, and having huge KE discussions/debates and wondering why? (No wonder to me! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>)
As stated, mechanicals IMHO will work fairly well on deer and other thin-skinned game, but you STILL have to correctly tune your bow for maximum efficiency with them. If you STILL have to do this anyway, why not just shoot a head that offers better penetration, is stonger, and has no "moving parts" that are a weak link? To me the answer is blatantly obvious: You should. Especially seeing as you have to tune anyway.
Just my own thoughts, Pinwheel 12
Absolutely I believe that statement! Mechanicals came into existence after many archers started to complain that they were not getting proper flight from their fixed-blade broadheads. Why? Two reasons. 1)Because they were either too lazy or dis-interested to take the time to correctly tune their setup or have them tuned! 2)This was multiplied tenfold with the re-invention of the solocam and their early god-awful nock travel, which did nothing to help with the tuning process of fixed broadheads. This in turn created more crying. (Notice mechanicals came into existence at around the same time?) So of course, manufacturers such as Riley Puckett saw the opportunity to capitalize on these issues, and the rest is history. Now here we are several years later crying about incomplete passthroughs, and having huge KE discussions/debates and wondering why? (No wonder to me! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>)
As stated, mechanicals IMHO will work fairly well on deer and other thin-skinned game, but you STILL have to correctly tune your bow for maximum efficiency with them. If you STILL have to do this anyway, why not just shoot a head that offers better penetration, is stonger, and has no "moving parts" that are a weak link? To me the answer is blatantly obvious: You should. Especially seeing as you have to tune anyway.
Just my own thoughts, Pinwheel 12
09-13-2002, 09:28 AM
#58
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location:
Posts: 2,994
RE: If push came to shove
Pinwheel, assuming a well tuned bow (which should be a given for most, I'd hope), are you saying that a fixed head will out penetrate a quality mechanical in every circumstance, whether all soft tissue (double lung no ribs) or straight through the shoulders? Again, I'm only talking whitetails. There seems to be a bunch of people shooting steelheads or snypers that would differ with this line of thinking.
Have you tested this theory out to arrive at your statements, or have you seen such testing done that convinces you? I'm really curious here.
Have you tested this theory out to arrive at your statements, or have you seen such testing done that convinces you? I'm really curious here.
09-13-2002, 09:32 AM
#59
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lehigh County PA USA
Posts: 12,157
RE: If push came to shove
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> There seems to be a bunch of people shooting steelheads or snypers that would differ with this line of thinking.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>
You can count me in with this group. In fact, I will put one of my Steelheads or one of my new Naildrivers up against any Magnus, Zwickey or Steelforce head in a test of penetration.
P12,
I have to admit that after reading your post I feel like pitching my solocam, mechanical shooting bow in the garbage. You paint a picture that both of these new pieces of equipment aren't worth shooting....and yet they continue to do well for me year in and year out in terms of taking whitetails. Why the discrepancy in opinions?
You can count me in with this group. In fact, I will put one of my Steelheads or one of my new Naildrivers up against any Magnus, Zwickey or Steelforce head in a test of penetration.
P12,
I have to admit that after reading your post I feel like pitching my solocam, mechanical shooting bow in the garbage. You paint a picture that both of these new pieces of equipment aren't worth shooting....and yet they continue to do well for me year in and year out in terms of taking whitetails. Why the discrepancy in opinions?
09-13-2002, 10:05 AM
#60
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: .. NH USA
Posts: 970
RE: If push came to shove
Guys-
The newer solos are a far cry from the old ones, just as the new mechanicals are. If you are happy with them and they work for you, by all means enjoy them! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> As stated, on thin-skinned game, not a problem for most who take the time to correctly tune.
Take one of your steelheads and throw it through any tightly-stretched hide. (I happened to have a sheephide kicking around when I did my testing last spring) I made a 2x4 frame, and stretched the hide over it, then stuck 2lb ethafoam behind it to determine the best penetration. There ain't a mechanical on the market that will stay with with a fixed-blade on this type of test, and when you add a 1/2" piece of plywood behind the hide to resemble a rib hit it gets even more distant. I will say in all honesty the steelhead 100 is the best mechanical out there currently IMO and offers the best penetration of the mechanicals, but it still does not stand up to the abuse or have the penetration of a fixed in real-life instances.
Of course, in most instances, both will penetrate fine on the 17" or so chest cavity of a whitetail. No arguement there, but again, WHY take a chance, any chance at all? Just my own thoughts, Pinwheel 12
The newer solos are a far cry from the old ones, just as the new mechanicals are. If you are happy with them and they work for you, by all means enjoy them! <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle> As stated, on thin-skinned game, not a problem for most who take the time to correctly tune.
Take one of your steelheads and throw it through any tightly-stretched hide. (I happened to have a sheephide kicking around when I did my testing last spring) I made a 2x4 frame, and stretched the hide over it, then stuck 2lb ethafoam behind it to determine the best penetration. There ain't a mechanical on the market that will stay with with a fixed-blade on this type of test, and when you add a 1/2" piece of plywood behind the hide to resemble a rib hit it gets even more distant. I will say in all honesty the steelhead 100 is the best mechanical out there currently IMO and offers the best penetration of the mechanicals, but it still does not stand up to the abuse or have the penetration of a fixed in real-life instances.
Of course, in most instances, both will penetrate fine on the 17" or so chest cavity of a whitetail. No arguement there, but again, WHY take a chance, any chance at all? Just my own thoughts, Pinwheel 12