Traditional bowhunters seem to post a good deal about the structural strength of particular broadheads, and whether it is adequate for situations in which the head strikes bone or a stump. There is some concern expressed about aluminum vs. steel ferrules, and how thick the broadheads are. However, the traditional archers are shooting these arrows at 165-190 fps. Aren't all of the broadheads being sold now manufactured on the assumption that they will most likely be shot from compound bows at over 270 fps? Does that mean that they are all plenty strong enough? Or does the fact that the traditional bowhunters seem to be using heavier points and more weight up front, along with heavier shafts, than the compound hunters make beefier broadheads necessary?

Would think as long as it is cut on contact design , and very sharp should be fine

$ wise hard to beat some of the proven ones (ACS standard, Zwickey eskimos)

don't think you will find any that will work any better ant any price

Many expandable broadheads intended for compounds don't hold up, and their penetration is terrible because a lot of the arrow's speed/energy is used to open the blades on contact. Take a look at any of the horn porn tv shows for an example of what I'm talking about.

If trad shooters shot those expandable heads, because their arrows are moving much slower, they would get even less penetration.

There are some good replaceable blade heads designed for compound shooters. Most of those will work fine for trad bows as well.

The sturdy cut on contact heads used by traditional archers have proven their effectiveness on game for a long time.

Compounders would be smart to adopt the kinds of heads trad shooters use, but not likely to happen.

When you talk about a head "designed for a compound", that just makes me think of one of the many high-resistance designs out there...

But as long as the resistance level is on par with or lower than an old Thunderhead or Muzzy chisel-tip design, you oughtta be able to use whatever you like without worries.

Most compounds are putting out 2X the KE that we get from our rigs, so I wouldn't worry about it...

Orion: Thanks. I should have made clear in my post that it was the fixed-blade broadheads, not those mechanical expanding ones, that I had in mind. I wouldn't be interested in using a mechanical broadhead. As to the fixed-blade heads, I see a lot of discussion on the archery boards about whether an aluminum ferrule or a certain thickness is strong enough if something hard is encountered. Is it only the compound bow hunters at 270-00 fps who might have to be concerned about that? Can the traditional hunters at 170-190 fps assume that structural strength of the broadhead itself is not an issue? Or is that something the trad archers do have to take into account, depending on what they are shooting?

GF: Just saw your reply. Thanks.

I'm going to *presume* that most traditional archers are not interested in hits on big or strong bones on game animals. And that such hits are totally by accident. SUPPOSEDLY ( I can't say from experience) A single bevel broad-head ( GRIZZLY for example) would help with a lot of the bone hits. From all that I have heard and read, mechanical / expanding broad-heads are NOT a good idea for traditional archers. As mentioned? Compound shooters should take note about cut on contact type heads. People like Ace, Zwickey etc. have been at this for many years and seem to know what works. Ditto for the bow-hunters that consistently bring home the game with these type of heads. Just sayin

Batman: I am sure that the Grizzly is a tough broadhead . However, some other fixed-blade broadheads that claim to be robust have aluminum ferrules, rather than steel ones, in certain weights. For example, the Steel Force broadheads have aluminum ferrules in certain medium weights, and so do some models of the highly- regarded Strickland Helix. It would be nice if we could consider these for hunting tough game such as boar hogs, for example, and just assume that the ferrule cannot be a weak spot (in case of a hit on shield or bone) because the manufacturers designed them for higher compound-bow speeds. However, I am not sure that that would be valid reasoning. What do you all think?

Regardless of bow type, I would only use an expandable on a perfgect broadside shot.

Not hung up on cut-on-contact, carry Thunderheads.

DanaC: I should have made clear in my original post that it was the fixed-blade broadheads, not those mechanical expanding ones, that I had in mind. I wouldn't be interested in using a mechanical broadhead. As to the fixed-blade heads, some have aluminum ferrules, rather than steel ones, and some are only .035"-.040" in thickness. It would be nice if we could consider those and just assume that they must be strong enough because the manufacturers designed them for higher compound-bow speeds; but that might not be valid. aybe the mnufacturers expected that certain broadheads would not be used by compound shooters, but only by the trad guys.

I wouldn't use a head designed today. They are all for compound bows and there is a big difference. ( besides money )

I shoot about 54/55#s! I have shot 125 gr. Eskimo's for years

and about 2 yrs. ago I tried 100 gr. Thunderheads! They worked

fine! The first deer, which was about 19 yrs. I got a pass

through! The second was almost a pass through but hung up on the

fletchings! My buddy uses "Slick tricks"! He gets pass throughs

all the time! Shot placement and getting them CLOSE is the

factor! Good Luck

The simpler and more foolproof the design the better. Why tempt Murphy's law. I can vouch for the helix though I have put them through some bone. I have switched to the cutthroat though just because of the solid one piece design. I have had nothing but excellent results with them.

Define a broadhead "designed for compounds". All bows, recurves, longbows, self bows sinew bows, compounds, and crossbows have the same requirements in a broadhead to be as efficient as they should be.

Compounds CAN, at times, over come design flaws in a broadhead to a certain degree due to the enrgy they impart to the arrow.

oldnewbyh: Trad folks have been shooting the types of heads you describe with aluminum ferrules, and I can't say as I've seen any reports that they don't hold together.

fdp: Thanks for your post: but I am afraid that I did not make my meaning clear enough. I am looking at some fixed blade broadheads that have potential issues or questions abut structural strength, like the Steel Force and Helix heads (both with aluminum ferrules in certain weights) and certain fixed blade broadheads that are no more than .035"-.042" thick. I am trying to figure out whether I need to be concerned about that, or whether I can just assume it is a non-issue because the manufacturers must have planned that compound bow hunters would be shooting them at 300 fps.

Oldnewby,

Your reasoning is sound. If anyone needs stronger heads, it's the compounders, not the trad guys. But trad guys tend to prefer heavier heads, which lend themselves to stronger construction. And trad guys tend to want overbuilt things anyway, so it all works out.

My feral pig arrows are designed to be easily lost without me crying too much. IOW I don't care if a pig runs off with one, and I never see the pig or the arrow again. The broadheads on those arrows are certainly "compound" broadheads - 100 grain 4-blade Muzzy's that I got real cheap.

Funny thing is, the first pig I shot with those (and a very lightweight Wal-Mart carbon arrow) zipped through it's chest so fast I thought I had missed. I didn't miss. The head was perfectly fine and still sharp. I just put it back in my quiver.

Trad guys (myself included) tend to overthink stuff, and overbuild stuff too.

Having said all that, my 2-blade Magnus file-sharpened heads just keep killing things faster than any other head I've ever used. My 10-pt. this year went 30 yards and fell over dead.

muzzys work fine as do Thunderheads, Slick Tricks and a bunch of others. Used to be a guy who posted on here who had killed 25-30 deer with 125 gr Thunderheads.

Man, if you can bust a Thunderhead with a Tradbow... I’d pay money to see that.

I haven’t been getting out, but one of the guys may be able to drop off a doe here... if he does, I’ll shoot up some leg bones and get back to you.

The way I see it is mechanical heads were designed for bows (compound) with enough energy to open the blades. With that said: no, junk compound mech heads won't be worth the trouble on the end of a tradbow arrow.

One of my long time hunting buddies is a compound shooter, a great shot and one of the best and most ethical hunters I have ever met and could track a pissant across a mile of beach sand. He uses a 80# bow with one pin, but he is shooting AD Hammerheads tipped with Rothaar Snuffers and 5" leftwing shields on the other end. Not your typical compound set up, and I have never seen a Snuffer hit as hard as his do. His whole set up is kind of a conundrum compared to most compounds but you can pretty well count on a pass through when he lets it loose.

The 'designed for compounds' is a play on word, and likely not reality. When compounds first came out, there were already some mechanical heads on the market. That said, I don't know why anyone would want to use one with all of the history on what has worked so well. No sense there.

Anyway, the compounds I have, circa 1970's/early 80's, won't shoot much over 200 fps on a good day, that's using the same type arrows you use with a conventional bow. Been there, checked it many years ago.

If you think about it, heads designed by guys shooting modern equipment are held to extremely high and tight tolerances. Heads like the Kudu and the Solid broadheads fly great with arrow speeds exceeding 280 fps, where design flaws would show.

Heads like the Wac'em is a very tough head that is a replaceable bladed cut on contact head that preforms great out of my stickbows. Even the heads from Wasp are tough heads manufactured to high standards to achieve perfect arrow flight at high speeds.

GF, I X2 your commit about the Thunderhead. I have shot them for years from all kinds of bows and to say they are tough is an understatement. One of the best broadheads on the market today. Thunderhead and Muzzy are the leaders in replaceable blade broadheads. And there are many Trad bow hunters that use them. I would bet that most people that knock them and say they aren't trad have never used them. And Thunderheads are among the sharpest blades available. And have been on the market since the 70's.

oldnewby, in MY opinion, and remember that's all it is, the more important factor is the actual shape of the head.

Having as shallow an angle as is reasonable from point to trailing edge, as well as having a pretty shallow edge angle (I'm fond of around 22 degree's) is very important. As for the thicknes of the blades, that's kind of an individual thing. Virtually any head is subject to damage on impact with heavy bone.

I agree, with a lot said. Mechanical broadheads do not perform well enough on a traditional bow, do to lost of velocity, and I will not wound and animal. Other than the Mechanical, any cut on contact broad will work. Just be ethical and shoot your arrow set up before you hunt with them, then sharpen, after that have fun.

The man who invented the Muzzy, was not happy with his solid heads,,,, he shot a long bow

Just my guesstimations...if you want to use a classic Muzzy or Thunderhead type broadhead with a traditional bow of 45# or more at your draw length, and you are shooting at reasonable distances at whitetails, I would expect great results. But under that poundage I would use a cut on impact head such as a 2-blade Zwickey Eskimo or Magnus, or Bear Razorhead. I would start worrying about the ability to penetrate with the conical or chisel type front ends of the Thunderhead or Muzzy under about 45#, but I've not tested this! There's probably someone out there shooting 40# and Muzzy's who has experienced excellent results.

If you have already registered, please

sign in now

For new registrations

Click Here