To play devils advocate, I think there’s a point where things are sharp enough and beyond that it doesn’t matter or could even be a detriment. There are thousands of animals that get killed very effectively each year with broadheads that are not as sharp as Iron Wills. Because of the difference in blade steel, they are leaps and bounds above just about everything else on the market so it’s almost unfair to compare others to them. It’s actually the main reason I am not a fan of Iron Wills, combined with their two blade design is they’re essentially too sharp.
I’m sure most of us have cut ourselves with a dull pocket knife. Maybe a few that have also cut themselves with a havalon. Or have had some sort of surgery. Which of the cuts easier to get to stop bleeding? Which close up and begin to heal sooner and more easily? It’s the reason surgeons use scalpels is to cause less tissue damage. But when you’re trying to cause an animal to die from blood loss and internal damage, the tearing and rough cut caused by a dull edge ends up being a good thing, so long as there’s sufficient energy to push it through. And most of us have that in our setups. Remember, we aren’t trying to quarter the whole animal with this blade edge. We just need it to be sharp enough to penetrate through hide to get the stuff inside and if it can come out the other side, thats even better.
Let me preface this by saying we’re both right, and I’m sure both of our setups kill just fine so really splitting hairs here but here’s my thoughts a bit more in depth.
From a physics and tissue trauma standpoint, sharper is generally better, not worse, assuming the broadhead still has adequate structural integrity. A sharper edge lowers the force required to initiate and continue a cut because it concentrates pressure over a smaller edge radius. That means more of the arrow’s kinetic energy and momentum can be used for penetration instead of being wasted overcoming drag and tissue resistance. In practical terms, that improves penetration and the likelihood of a pass through, especially when hide, fascia, ribs, or less than perfect shot angles are involved.
Where I’d disagree is the idea that a broadhead can be “too sharp” in a way that makes it less lethal. Clean cuts may look less traumatic on the surface, but what kills is getting through tissue and cutting vital structures. If a broadhead slices through lungs, liver, major vessels, or both sides of the chest more efficiently, that is a net positive. The body does not somehow get a free pass because the cut was cleaner.
The surgery comparison also kind of proves the opposite point. Surgeons use scalpels because sharp edges cut with less force and less wasted tissue disruption. That is better for controlled healing in a patient. But in hunting, we are not trying to promote healing, we are trying to maximize penetration and disrupt critical anatomy. Hemorrhage is driven far more by what gets cut and how deep the wound goes than by whether the wound edges are neat or ragged.
A duller edge may tear more, but tearing more only helps if you still get enough penetration to reach the stuff that matters. If increased drag costs you penetration, that is a bad trade. I’d take a sharper head that gets in easier, gets through more animal, and has a better chance of a pass-through every time.
You can absolutely kill animals with less sharp heads. That part is true. But that does not mean less sharp is better. It just means hunting setups often have enough margin to still work. Cheers!
