Iron will/shwaker Broadhead penetration test vs reality

[JjamesIII]

I have always been under the common belief that fixed blades of sound design will out penetrate your typical expandible broadhead. It’s the age old compromise of performance in flight vs. performance in penetration/reliability.

Iron will tested the force required to penetrate muscle and hide on a video a few years ago. The expandibles took a tremendous amount of force to penetrate the media relative to the fixed two blade iron will- over 15x according to the experiment.

Then recently I saw a video put out by shwaker and Levi Morgan in which they shot numerous heads representing both the fixed blades as well as several expandibles. They shot through ballistic gel covered in hide to compare all of them, among other media. Surprisingly, despite the much larger cutting diameter of most of the expandibles, they were all very close to the same penetration of all of the fixed heads.

I do not understand the discrepancy in the two test. The one test is basically giving me the impression that I’d have better luck shooting an elk with a butter knife in lieu of any expandible. Then Levi/shwaker are practically saying their expandible is an icbm that should be trusted for elk hunting.

I don’t see how such disparity in data can be seen in two test that both seem to be valid and honest test. Does the dynamic force change the way we should measure the two styles of heads, whereas iron will’s test is a statically measured pressure gauge? Since we are only concerned with our penetration of arrows being fired from archery equipment, does Levi/shwaker’s test become more valuable?

 

[Kularrow]

Levi is a salesman trying to sell a product. It’s like Billy Mays and Oxyclean.

 

[jbelz]

There are a whole host of factors that go into this. Generally speaking, all things being equal, it's safe to assume a well-made fixed-blade broadhead is going to penetrate better than a well-made expandable. This is largely due to edge retention and sidewall friction. Depending on the style of fixed blade, the differences become even greater (i.e. a double bevel fixed blade will penetrate better than something like an Annihilator, for example).

Mechanicals are made with flimsy (relative to fixed blade heads) blades that don't hold an edge well. They can be sharp (and sharpened further), they can work (people will kill a lot of stuff with mechs this year), and they can get great penetration (depending on the shooter), but to suggest they penetrate even remotely as well as a fixed blade is a joke.

I'll see if I can use my situation as an example: I am blessed by the Almighty to have a 31" draw length, and I'm pulling around 72ish lbs. I can shoot whatever the hell I want, including butter knives, and still get the job done. Most of the time, I am using a Day Six Evo with a 3/4 bleeder (double bevel broadhead). I've blown through everything, including elk, and I have a lot of confidence with that setup. Sometimes, on antelope or deer, I'll break out a Sevr or Shwacker, and 90% of the time I'm blowing through them as well. If I use a mech, it's usually for fun (let's see what this one does)!

My girlfriend likes to bowhunt as well, and she's got a 26" DL and is pulling around 52 lbs. There isn't a universe that exists where I'd let her run around with mechanicals (lessons have been learned). She uses those Evo's w/ a 1/2" bleeder, and has also blown through everything she's shot using that setup.

In short, ballistic get is cool and all, but it isn't representative of an actual animal. Levi, as great as he is, can get away with just about anything. But he and the guys are trying to live in a "have your cake and eat it, too" world, and it's just not reality. There are plenty of advantages to shooting a mech – maximizing penetration isn't one of them. Having longer blades with more surface area exacts a tax (friction). Physics!

Remember to believe nothing that you hear, and only half of what you see.

 

[Beendare]

Its true the mech heads are much less efficient BUT we are shooting incredibly powerful bows with energy to burn…thus the mech heads work fine in most setups.

The big problem with mechs is guys shooting them without BH tuning first. They should not be used as a substitute for tuning.

 

[Bump79]

Ballistic gel stops by friction - not cutting. So it's based on the amount of surface area. If it has enough stuff in front of it like Lusk's tests, then it gives an idea but isn't perfect. A mechanical will take a significant amount of energy to deploy and they are cutting more tissue. Having larger blades will increase the likelihood of hitting a rib and takes more force. For a lot of people I still think they're great. Not real nock to quality mechanicals.

If mechanicals came with better blades they would be better off.

My girlfriend likes to bowhunt as well, and she's got a 26" DL and is pulling around 52 lbs. There isn't a universe that exists where I'd let her run around with mechanicals (lessons have been learned). She uses those Evo's w/ a 1/2" bleeder, and has also blown through everything she's shot using that setup.

There's a lot to learn from these examples. I find it pretty entertaining that some guys with 28.5" draw and 65# get so hyper fixated on penetration and will shoot a super heavy 1" 2b single bevel when women's lighter setups with larger cut broadheads are blowing through everything. If you have more energy, why not use it?

My take - shoot a durable head with sharp blades. Vary the cut size and the number of blades to your specs. It's about that easy.

 

[5MilesBack]

The best penetration tests IMO are actual experiences on animals. The problem with those though is that you have no control tests, and every hit, angle, and animal is different. Overall I have no problem with penetration with fixed or expandable heads, so I don't give it much thought. But I've seen women shooting sub 50 pounds putting arrows through elk without issues, so for guys pulling higher weights with a tuned setup.......no BH should be a problem for penetration.

 

[MattB]

Levi is a salesman trying to sell a product. It’s like Billy Mays and Oxyclean.

That criticism applies to IW's owner too - no?

 

[Kularrow]

That criticism applies to IW's owner too - no?

Absolutely without question.

 

[JjamesIII]

I agree with all points above. I’m beginning to think that ballistic gel test are no more valid than shooting through water. I don’t know how they became the “standard” testing medium of performance?. Just as we all know a fixed head’s performance on game isn’t represented accurately in gel, recently vortex optics did a gel penetration test on 9mm vs 10mm and the amount of penetration measured were very similar -despite the HUGE energy advantage going to 10mm. They used that information to make the conclusion that the 9mm is so close to the 10mm, hence it is an effective bear defense weapon.
It would be cool if actual meat was used more often in test. Ashby did this. You’d need to shoot through boneless hams probably to things as consistent as possibly.

 

[Beendare]

Or you could just ask a few experienced guys....BTW, more than a few chiming in here with good advice..

Awe ...heck, just listen to the latest and greatest Youtube hack trying to make a name for himself testing- grin

 

[JjamesIII]

Or you could just ask a few experienced guys....BTW, more than a few chiming in here with good advice..

Awe ...heck, just listen to the latest and greatest Youtube hack trying to make a name for himself testing- grin

I’ve already got my own data set from bow hunting for the last 30 years. I’ve seen the trends come and go on broadhead marketing. I was just relaying the information of two seemingly well conducted test and the discrepancy of performance results. Gel test vs. push force test.

 

[Eastonsgrandpa]

I have always been under the common belief that fixed blades of sound design will out penetrate your typical expandible broadhead. It’s the age old compromise of performance in flight vs. performance in penetration/reliability.

Iron will tested the force required to penetrate muscle and hide on a video a few years ago. The expandibles took a tremendous amount of force to penetrate the media relative to the fixed two blade iron will- over 15x according to the experiment.

Then recently I saw a video put out by shwaker and Levi Morgan in which they shot numerous heads representing both the fixed blades as well as several expandibles. They shot through ballistic gel covered in hide to compare all of them, among other media. Surprisingly, despite the much larger cutting diameter of most of the expandibles, they were all very close to the same penetration of all of the fixed heads.

I do not understand the discrepancy in the two test. The one test is basically giving me the impression that I’d have better luck shooting an elk with a butter knife in lieu of any expandible. Then Levi/shwaker are practically saying their expandible is an icbm that should be trusted for elk hunting.

I don’t see how such disparity in data can be seen in two test that both seem to be valid and honest test. Does the dynamic force change the way we should measure the two styles of heads, whereas iron will’s test is a statically measured pressure gauge? Since we are only concerned with our penetration of arrows being fired from archery equipment, does Levi/shwaker’s test become more valuable?

I like expandable heads but don’t think I’d ever shoot a shwacker. A head that doesn’t open until inside and only leaves a field tip sized entrance hole makes me very leery. If you get a pass through, no big deal and I have no doubt they wreak havoc inside. But if only one hole and it’s that small, I just can’t chance that.

 

[wapitibob]

I've gotten better penetration with a spitfire than almost every fixed head I've used. The fixed heads do wreak havoc when they stay inside the cavity. Haven't seen that with the spitfire as all but one was a pass thru.

This is a schwacker killed Bull. He was stainding 10 yards inside those trees when shot.

 

[SDHNTR]

Swacker’s long aluminum ferrule, blades contained within, is a non starter for me. Bend it by hitting bone on the way in and the blades bind up in the ferrule and cannot open. Don’t ask me how I know.

 

[100 others]

Swacker’s long aluminum ferrule, blades contained within, is a non starter for me. Bend it by hitting bone on the way in and the blades bind up in the ferrule and cannot open. Don’t ask me how I know.

Been there, won’t do it again.

 

[SDHNTR]

Been there, won’t do it again.
View attachment 687302

Bingo

 

[MattB]

Swacker’s long aluminum ferrule, blades contained within, is a non starter for me. Bend it by hitting bone on the way in and the blades bind up in the ferrule and cannot open. Don’t ask me how I know.

Agree, in this day and age I don't see the point of using aluminum in heads used for big game - especially those with a relatively long ferrule (lever arm). Too many other better all-steel alternatives on the market.

And I somewhat hate to say this because it may be construed as crapping on a really excellent archer, but in my 30+ year of bowhunting I have seen a number of really accomplished target archers favor BH designs which shoot the most accurately but have significant design flaws in terms of game performance over designs which are slightly less accurate but definitively more effective.

 

[Bump79]

Agree, in this day and age I don't see the point of using aluminum in heads used for big game - especially those with a relatively long ferrule (lever arm). Too many other better all-steel alternatives on the market.

And I somewhat hate to say this because it may be construed as crapping on a really excellent archer, but in my 30+ year of bowhunting I have seen a number of really accomplished target archers favor BH designs which shoot the most accurately but have significant design flaws in terms of game performance over designs which are slightly less accurate but definitively more effective.

Or Titanium

 

[wapitibob]

Short, hardned stainless is what I'm using this year.