Of course, bleeder blades add a little cutting surface length to a broadhead, but how much actual practical difference do you think that really makes in hunting , in comparison to the 2-blade version of the same broadhead (say, to pick one example, the 4-blade version and the 2-blade version of the Magnus Black Hornet)? And if there is some advantage in a broadhead with bleeders, is it big enough to make up for the nuisance of removing and sharpening (or replacing) the bleeders?

Well, personally I've seen much more blood on the ground when using them. Old Papa said they made an X-cut, so there is twice as much flesh sliced, and that should lead to more blood loss. Now all of the shots I made with them were in the chest cavity so it wasn't a long blood trail either way, but I do see more on the ground and that is telling for me.

What George said,

Whether you use them or not, in my opinion more blood is good. They are optional of course, and I used them without for a lot of years and had very good success. Just saying that once I started using them, I've noticed more blood. Your mileage may vary. Nice to have choices.

I don't like bleeders straight 2 blade for me.

I've got pics of a steel force that stopped dead in an elk vertebra due to the bleeders...otherwise that BH would have chopped the backbone in half.

Negatives; Steeper blade angle of the bleeders

The Magnus Stinger and Buzzcuts have a stronger one piece ferrule in a straight 2 blade.

IME, Blood trails have been more dependent on location than the BH for me....shoot something high and it doesn't matter how many blades you have...

My experience has been the opposite of monkey ball’s initial statement... I hunted black bears with magnus 2 blade with a bleeder insert for a while. I shot a couple of bears where the arrow didn’t completely pass through. It may have poked out the other side a short distance, or not made it that far. Then I tried it with out the bleeder. The arrow zipped through and kept on going. I think bleeders add a tremendous amount of friction, especially with their steep blade angle, that inhibits penetration, and the higher likelihood of hitting a bone. I’ve also noticed how two blades tend to split bones where as those with bleeders or multi- bladed heads tend to wedge more and get stuck. I think any broadheads no matter how many blades cuts a hole big enough for the arrow shaft to easily pass through.Its just that the broadhead itself has to get through first. For deer I don’t think it makes a difference in being able to cleanly kill them whether you have a bleeder or not. On bigger animals with thicker hide , especially moose, I’m of the opinion that a 2 blade without bleeders is far superior than one with bleeders, in terms of getting two holes in the animal that blood can leak out.

100% of the time I use Bear Greenie Razorheads without bleeders !!!

The theory of more penetration without them is a valid point, but the linear inches of cut is indeed twice as great. You don`t get half the penetration using bleeders vs. a 2 blade so the logical answer is the 2 blade with bleeders will cause more linear inches of cutting.

Personally I have not seen much difference in penetration with bleeders...if they contact anything substantial they break off and you are right back to the 2 blade.

Good points by both camps.

I moslty shoot 2 blade.I like thier bone splitting capabilities alot.That bleeder blade even if it breaks is gonna retard penetraion on bone hits.Bows are not as powerful as we think and any drag stops an arrow quicker than we would like.Thiers a high likelyhood of encountering bone on entry or exit or maybe both.

Two blade is great on close range shots from an elevated treestand where you go though the top of deer and exit in the brisket area where all the bones of the ribs come together.Its hard to get a pass through thier and you want the exit wound or you got no blood.Two blades excel thier in my experience in getting the exit hole or at least punching through with the arrow still in deer for a good blood trail.

If you center punch a rib on a larger animal I feel better about the 2 blade taking out both lungs and getting out the other side..Its possible to center punch both ribs and the 2 blade wins out in that situation IMO.

I do agree with the benefits listed above about 2 blades with bleeders in regard to increasing hemmorage.No dsiputing that.

Pick your poisen

I have no empirical evidence....only subjective, old-wives-tale superstition. If I used them it would be a permanent part of the blade. Why? Because if that arrow went in with a replaceable and came out without it and I didn't fine it field dressing....I wouldn't enjoy that venison wondering if it was in the next bite...

I'm a big fan of the bleeders or 3, 4 blade head. Have difficulty seeing blood with the autumn colors.

Three or four blades give better blood trails. For me it's that simple.

I never found that it did unless your shot is marginal and a bleeder clips a vein and a major one at that maybe.

"unless your shot is marginal and a bleeder clips a vein and a major one at that"

There's a big plus for using one, besides a bigger hole, and a good chance of more blood.

They definitely don't hurt anything and I really they do help.

What I remember reading about the Razorhead auxiliary blades (the proper name for them) was that the "bleeder" was there to cut open the hide, making a + in the hide to allow easier arrow penetration, therefore, more damage, therefore, more blood loss.They were not put there to add a cutting blade to the broadhead for cutting of veins or whatever. They were to cut the hide open. I believe Fred said they would snap if they hit bone. Can't swear to that one, but I'm sure about the first.

If you want a head of the same profile as the Razorhead but built without a slot for "bleeder blades", The Zwickey Eskimo is the one. Fred made it so you could choose and use the same head again with a new auxiliary blade.

The Bear inserts are flexible and will give/lay down in contact with bone. Whitetail ribs aren't very big and I've shot through them. This argument, if true would negate the use of three blades which we all know work just great even on rib hits. Unless you tried them more than just one time, your argument against them is subjective at best.

As I said, I used them effectively for years without the inserts. I just get more blood on the ground with them. Use what you like and have real experience with.

IMO more cuts=bigger hole=more internal damage= more blood

can you kill a deer with a two blade...yup

I think you can find an argument for about any broadhead design.

Personally I like the look of a two blade, but was amazed at the penetration of a woodsman.

I say no. I've never killed a deer with a two blade where I thought that any bleeders of some sort would have made it better. Who am I to argue with Fred?? But I still don't use them.

Animals have been known to pass out at the mere sight. ;-)

On bad hits blenders could hit an artery that 2 blades could slip past. Also a friend had the slice a two blade made clot shut on a buck that was liver hit so we found it by 4 of us doing a grid search. I use 2 blades myself except 3 on bears n turkeys.

Bears bleeder were built to break off on bone hits btw.

The argument for breeders catching an artery can't really be proven because if you lost a wounded deer there's no way to know if a bleeder would have caught an artery or not. On a deer kill of course 2 blades worked. I just got out of the hospital and couldn't draw my 60 pounders so I'm glad I'm using 2 blades since my 51lb hunters gonna be my hunting bow this year. This is my second drop in weight due to illness. From 73lbs to 60 and now to 51. Hopefully this one won't be permanent tho.

Ive shot a lot of animals with the Bear Razorhead and I always use the bleeder . If you don't have a blood trail your not going to find some of the animals you shoot that's the advantage of using the bleeder and getting a hole not a small slit . Hitting the big bones with a 2,4,or 3 blade doesn't make any difference your not going to get through with any of them. Penetration is not an issue on North American big game shot in the right place as long as you are using a set up that is adequate for what you are hunting. Get a road kill or use one of your own kills don't gut it hang it up and shoot the heck out of it with different heads and see for your self what works good . I did this and the Razorhead with the bleeder worked great always complete penetration and a nice hole. Whats the use of hunting and shooting a deer and then not being able to find it because you have no way of trailing it , even from a good hit sometimes deer can run along ways , 300 yards is not uncommon try and find an animal in brushy areas that far away with no blood trail. Ill use the bleeder it gives me the advantage its like shooting a deer twice with a 2 blade.

I wonder why its called a bleeder ?

Question for those who use the bleeders—how do you glue them on to wood shafts? The bleeders seem to block the shaft from seating properly. I’d like to try some old greenies this year but was wondering if I need to shorten the taper or cut slitls for the bleeders?

I shorten my point taper 3/16". Works and never had a problem.

I know this is only one data point, but I'll add it here for your consideration - Bear razorhead with a bleeder, 45 deg quartering away on a mule deer, entered the rear of the abdomen and exited just behind the shoulder on the other side of the deer, arrow went in one side and out the other.... granted, it was a 620gr arrow going about 175 fps.... and, this was a 23/64" aluminum arrow.

I for one support bleeder blades the more you cut veines the more they bleed out I shoot bows 50# and more which helps

I have killed a lot of deer with a bow & it still amazes me how quickly a properly placed broadhead kills. personally I feel that wicked sharp trumps # of blades & I use the razor sharp wheels which Will only sharpen 2 edge. I will say in the event of a bad hit the extra blades could be the difference between recovery or not

For me it’s not penetration or killing ability. A sharp head, in the right spot puts em down, no matter how many blades. It’s the amount of blood that hits the ground that matters, and I get more of that when I’m using a head with more than 2 blades.

MP

Fred Bears theory of the bleeder increasing penetration was debunked in Ashbys early tests in Africa. 2 Blade consistently out penetrated 4 blade heads in all types of hits. My own experience I had a bleeder on a bear head partially dislodge but not break. It severely impeded penetration. I recovered the deer but was darn lucky. Never used them again.

The skin can move after the hit. Once the arrow is out it can cover the wound channel. Bleeders definitely would make a larger hole in the skin which would allow more blood out. I usually use 2 blades. I have had dead deer within 30 yds and very little blood. I am currently using Zwickey No Mercy single bevels which seem to be better.

Back in the 70's, the Bear Razorhead was THE broadhead in my neck of the woods. We always used the bleeder blades to start with. After a few misses, they ended up broke or twisted so we had to use the broadheads without them. I had mixed results with them. I remember one time I shot a doe a little far back and hit the liver. When I found her, it looked like she had been shot with a square shotgun slug. The bleeder blade helped me out that time. Another time I shot a small buck nearly straight down out of a climbing stand. My bow limb hit the rail and the broadhead didn't exit. No blood even with the bleeders. The buzzards led me to him a week later. The last deer I killed with one I hit her tight behind the shoulder. Arrow didn't exit. Nearly didn't find her. When I cleaned her, the bleeder blade on one side was broken off even with the ferrel. The other side the bleeder was twisted 90 degrees and acted like a snow plow, limiting penetration. I was using a 50 lb. recurve back then. Now-a- days I'm shooting in the low 40's and I only use 2 blades for the penetration. If you got enough power to get'em out the other side, the bleeder blades seemed to put more blood on the ground for me. Just my .02 cents worth....

What are the practical disadvantages of utilizing the Bear Razorhead bleeder blades?

less penetration. basic physics the more surface area you try to push through something the more energy it takes. the only good argument against this could be the 3 to 1 long woodsman type heads. as for blood on the ground one thing not mentioned is on a lung shot deer as much if not more blood gets blown out their nose. personally I think the most awesome head ever made is the 160 gr snuffer but I'd never recommend them out of a low # bows. many many many years ago I shot 80+ lbs 2317s & 160 snuffers talk about devastating

If you make a good shot, any sharp broadhead will do the job and probably leave enough blood trail for you to find the animal ok. However, shots are not always good. With a gut hit, or a large muscle hit, a bleeder may just make the difference between getting the animal or not. Through the years and many, many animals shot and recovered by our family more blades have made a big difference on hits that are marginal. Once hit a deer a bit low, just below the brisket hitting only the top of front leg and not entering the cavity at all. The deer was not an easy track but she did bleed out and we found her. It was a big magnus 4 blade and I do believe it made the difference. We have many such stories. On bigger animals I choose a two blade but for deer, I think a bleeder blade may make a difference when things don't go right...

I will just stick with my 3 blade woodsman elite. You only have a 33 percent chance of hitting a rib and ribs are not very tough. In my test I have not found any head that penetrates any better for me. Widow

I agree, the bleeder can make a difference on a liver, gut and poor type hit. Any broadhead will be lethal when heart, lung, kidney, aorta and major arteries are hit. Also, all liver hits are not the same, there is liver parenchyma, and hepatic arteries and portal vessels, vastly different short and long term consequences. Similar with a hit in the spleen.

Have to be careful when gutting if the bleeder is not intact.

I am not reading all of this thread, BUT BUT, I like Bear heads, shot 5 or 6 deer with them. I quit them when I got tired of fighting with the bleeder blades. They can be finicky to mount, I have had them bend and bind, so I scrape the paint out of the divots and then they are loose. i have seen where they have failed on a rib contact, maybe his had the loose fitting bleeder like I had sometimes. I know the main head is suppose to do most of the work and the bleeder is just suppose help a bit and keep the cut open, but heads like the four blade Herters can work better, the bleeder blades are at a good cutting angle not that chop and hack angle of those Bears and Zwickys. If there was a broadhead available that was the shape of the Bear bleeder blade, but it had a removable bleeder blade the shape of Zwicky bleeder blade, everyone would buy them, because that would be the perfect thing. If four blades are good six would be 50 percent better.

I shot a number of elk and deer with them, always used the bleeders The bleeders make a hole whereas otherwise you just have a slot which sometimes closes the wound channel off. But a good 2 blade works fine regardless. The extra blades seldom make up for a bad hit in my experience.

I would rather use a 3-blade broadhead, than a 2-blade with bleeders.

I used Woodsman 3-blades for years and killed those deer I shot. I switched to 2-blade to improve penetration and I'm pleased with the results/better blood trails.

I left a Bear bleeder in the shoulder of a buck around 1990. Never used them again. If I'm not going to make a killing shot I sure don't want to leave any parts behind to fester!

I have used Zwickey 4bls. Ihave been happy with penatration and blood trails on deer.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here