i dunno about you guys but i think mechanicals have come a long way
i mean ya the older once are horribble
but i shoot the snyper expandibles but they are held on by a little rubber band
so it is fail safe
and they shoot like a field point
ORIGINAL: Squirrelhawker
This maybe a rabbit trail but I've been lurking on this thread and it is one of my buttons I guess you could say.
How do you suppose, or perhaps somone actually knows, how they test all these new mech designs? I'm assuming that a large portion of design work and penetration tests are accomplished through ballistic materials as opposed to live animals.
I wonder if this isn't an inherent "problem" with some mechanical designs right from the get go. I'm sure you can photograph and watch broadheads go through ballistic gel all day long, but I wonder how that equates to a deers chest? Angle, hide, ribs, no ribs, shoulder, no shoulder, abdomen,etc. How the heck do they quantify these variables?
With regard to scientific testing and theory, there has always been a constantly shifting chasm between "invitro" and "invivo" ie, the "laboratory" vs "life."
ORIGINAL: JPH
ORIGINAL: Squirrelhawker
This maybe a rabbit trail but I've been lurking on this thread and it is one of my buttons I guess you could say.
How do you suppose, or perhaps somone actually knows, how they test all these new mech designs? I'm assuming that a large portion of design work and penetration tests are accomplished through ballistic materials as opposed to live animals.
I wonder if this isn't an inherent "problem" with some mechanical designs right from the get go. I'm sure you can photograph and watch broadheads go through ballistic gel all day long, but I wonder how that equates to a deers chest? Angle, hide, ribs, no ribs, shoulder, no shoulder, abdomen,etc. How the heck do they quantify these variables?
With regard to scientific testing and theory, there has always been a constantly shifting chasm between "invitro" and "invivo" ie, the "laboratory" vs "life."
All of the same questions and logic apply to fixed blades.
ORIGINAL: Squirrelhawker
ORIGINAL: JPH
All of the same questions and logic apply to fixed blades.
True. Minus the several thousand years of anecdotal evidence.[;)]
ORIGINAL: hunter480
I hunt with Muzzy 3-blade, 100 brain broadheads, my buddy hunts with mechanicals. Not sure which one`s he uses.
We`ve both killed deer, and he`s yet to experience any issues with his mechanicals.
I`ll just say, no matter what the newest design, anything with parts that have to move, eventually, you will have a failure. Period. May not happen often, may not happen for a long time, but it will happen.
I see the up sides to mechanicals, but for me personally, I`m not open to the potential that my next shot will be the one, that will experience failure to operate properly.
Muzzys are all I`ve used in my short bow hunting career, and as JPH stated, why would you mess with success.
ORIGINAL: hunter480
as JPH stated, why would you mess with success.
ORIGINAL: JPH
ORIGINAL: hunter480
as JPH stated, why would you mess with success.
Yep. If you are spilling a lot of blood with what you are using, keep using it.
If you are having arrow flight issues and have always been afraid of mechanicals (like I was), consider a rear-opening slip cam.
And as I said in my OP, I would be happy to accept $$ for saying that....really.
Return to Archery and Bowhunting
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests