Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Allow mechanical/retractable broadheads for all big game.

  1. #1
    Member AAA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    22

    Question Allow mechanical/retractable broadheads for all big game.

    2012-2013 Regulations

    "Allow mechanical/retractable broadheads for all big game."


    Even on brown bear? Are there any other restrictions on them and their use?

  2. #2

    Default

    Yep, even on brown bears. Only restriction is on "barbed" heads. Just because it is legal does not mean it is the best tackel for every situation or setup. A .223 is also legal for brown bears in AK, but might not be the best. A lot of mechanicals on the market seem to be desinged for whitetail sized critters and also rob a lot of KE on impact. Something to think about anyways. Good luck!

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,971

    Default

    I've seen mechanicals fail to penetrate a 100lb doe shoulder. This is a bad idea on heavy game.
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Default

    Who exactly is the guy that suggested that this become law?

    Was there a proposal that I did not see?

  5. #5

    Default

    I think his name was Murphy.....

  6. #6
    Moderator stid2677's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Fairbanks Area
    Posts
    7,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Who exactly is the guy that suggested that this become law?

    Was there a proposal that I did not see?
    Here ya go...............

    PROPOSAL 57 - 5 AAC 92.085 (c)(i). Unlawful methods of taking big game; exceptions.
    Allow archers to use mechanical/retractable broadheads for all big game.
    Under the section of: Restricted weapons hunts and regulations Archery/Bow and Arrow
    Equipment:
    (c) the broad head is:
    (1) a fixed, replaceable, or mechanical/retractable blade-type broad head when taking all big game animals, and
    [(2) A FIXED OR REPLACEABLE BLATE TYPE BROADHEAD FOR TAKING BIG GAME ANIMANS, AND]
    (2) not barbed
    ISSUE: I would like the Board of Game to allow the use of mechanical/retractable blade broad heads in archery hunting for taking mountain goat, moose, elk, brown/grizzly bear, muskoxen, and bison. Currently, these are the only big game animals in Alaska for which mechanical/retractable blade broad heads are not allowed.
    92
    Many people prefer fixed-blade broad heads and they may use them. For those hunters that prefer mechanical/retractable blade broad heads, they are forced to change to fixed blade when hunting these animals. This change can be difficult. I believe that the advances in broad head technology in the last few years have addressed and eliminated the concerns that the first generation of mechanical broad heads presented. By making this change, you are allowing hunters the choice of equipment in which they feel the most comfort, confidence, and competence. Ultimately, this will lead to increased accuracy and decreased wounding loss.
    WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF NOTHING IS DONE? Archery hunters will not have the choice of broad head type that best suits their style and comfort level. Many claim that mechanical/retractable blade broad heads fly more like field points, and are therefore more accurate when compared to a target practice situation. Fixed blade broad heads usually need to be "tuned" and don't fly like field points. Many amateurs are not skilled enough to tune their broad heads well, and as a result, are less accurate in the field. This could potentially lead to more wounding loss of animals.
    WILL THE QUALITY OF THE RESOURCE HARVESTED OR THE PRODUCTS PRODUCED BE IMPROVED? This could potentially lead to decreased wounding loss of animals.
    WHO IS LIKELY TO BENEFIT? Archery hunters that prefer mechanical blade broad heads. WHO IS LIKELY TO SUFFER? Archery hunters that prefer the use of mechanical blade
    broad heads.
    OTHER SOLUTIONS CONSIDERED: Initially, I had the idea for this proposal for the purpose of moose hunting. However, after further consideration, I don't see any reason why this regulation could not be applied to all big game animals.
    PROPOSED BY: Bob Ermold LOG NUMBER: EG042611320
    "I refuse to let the things I can't do stop me from doing the things I can"
    Founding Member
    http://www.residenthuntersofalaska.org/

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FamilyMan View Post
    Who exactly is the guy that suggested that this become law?

    Was there a proposal that I did not see?
    There were two proposals calling for this in the last round, one by Terry Marquette and one by Bob Ermold. Bob's was "carried" and Terry's was "n/a" because they had already addressed the issue with Bob's proposal. Here is a link to the preliminary actions by the board of game:
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/re...-12/prelim.pdf

  8. #8

    Default

    Ok, I'll bite. "Archery hunters will not have the choice of broad head type that best suits their style and comfort level."
    BS. There are many types and styles of broadheads to chose from. Some are better suited for specific game. A broadhead doesn't cure a bowhunter's comfort level. That comes thru hard work, discipline and self evaluation.
    "Many claim that mechanical/retractable blade broad heads fly more like field points, and are therefore more accurate when compared to a target practice situation." Laziness. If you can't throw strikes then don't expect to pitch. Everyone throws an occasional ball but if you want to pitch then spend some time in the bullpen. Changing to a new ball won't guarantee strikes.
    "Fixed blade broad heads usually need to be "tuned" and don't fly like field points." - BSYou tune your arrow for the broadhead and field points you're using. The reasons stated for use of retractable blades just mask poor arrow flight.
    "Many amateurs are not skilled enough to tune their broad heads well, and as a result, are less accurate in the field. This could potentially lead to more wounding loss of animals." BS If they're too lazy to tune or get help tuning then they'll be too lazy to practice. It could be said if they are too amateur to get good arrow flight then they'll be to amateur to limit their effective range and lead to more wounding. At best the amateur will have a false sense of security.

    "Mechanical" requires an action. Action requires energy. Energy is not free. It must come from somewhere. The energy must come from the arrow which means less energy for penetration. The transferred energy must go somewhere. The energy is transferred from forward energy driving penetration to "outward energy" expanding the blades. This causes more impact on contact. More impact on contact is transferred to the animal in the form of a punch. This punch may lead to more reaction from the animal which could lead to longer blood trails or worse with a brown bear.

    I personally think this is another step leading to the magic 100 yard bowhunter. That certainly will not decrease wound rates.

    I'll now step down from my pulpit and never speak of it again.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,031

    Thumbs up well put

    Quote Originally Posted by Boud'arc View Post
    Ok, I'll bite.
    No no, Boud'arc, no worries there, I'm with ya too, and I suspect we're far from alone. I was trying to figure out how to respond most constructively, and you think or type faster than me (or both maybe). +1 for that

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,971

    Default

    I don't have a dog in the fight but I'll certainly agree completely with what Boud'arc said above.

    I recently found a doe that was shot in the right hip last fall and I believe died from starvation. Guess what type broadhead was used!!

    If you look at the distance a hunter (archer) can consistantly put their hunting arrow in a 9" circle then you have a pretty good idea of how far he/she can effectively hunt regardless of what type arrow, broadhead, bow or other equipment they are using. Boud'arc is correct...there are VERY few bows and arrows that can't be tuned to shoot accurately if you take the time to do it....in the process they are learning their equipment and getting much needed practice that makes them better hunters. Rant off......
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

  11. #11

    Default

    I will have to admit that some of the reasons in the proposal are stretching the truth some but that doesn't make mechanicals bad. I have been using them for all almost 20 years and in my experience they work awesome. Have used them on all different kinds of animals, big and small and they are deadly. What's not to like about an 1 1/2-2 inch hole in something. I would suggest you all give them a try. Dogging on them without trying them is like the person who says a 30-06 isn't enough you need to shoot a 338. I'll admit way back when, when mechanicals first came out, they left something to be desired but the ones today are great, probably better than fixed.

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woundedknee View Post
    I will have to admit that some of the reasons in the proposal are stretching the truth some but that doesn't make mechanicals bad. I have been using them for all almost 20 years and in my experience they work awesome. Have used them on all different kinds of animals, big and small and they are deadly. What's not to like about an 1 1/2-2 inch hole in something. I would suggest you all give them a try. Dogging on them without trying them is like the person who says a 30-06 isn't enough you need to shoot a 338. I'll admit way back when, when mechanicals first came out, they left something to be desired but the ones today are great, probably better than fixed.
    Please suggest a brand/type and I'll try a pack. They do make a little bigger hole in some cases. My point was that the mechanicals do NOT make a hunter a better shot than with fixed blades if they are tuned properly.
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    north pole
    Posts
    634

    Default

    I will throw my 2 cents in. I agree with legalizing expandables, I remember when they first showed up on the hunting scene, but that was some time ago. I believe over the past few years they have been made and designed to improve performance and the expandables today are just as good as any broadhead out there.
    Just like the 100 yard bowhunter (i dont agree) but 30 years ago, I couldnt imagine shooting my old Hoyt Pro hunter that far. However bows produced today are a total different bow then ones produced years past.
    My 2 cents anyhow

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowrider View Post
    Please suggest a brand/type and I'll try a pack. They do make a little bigger hole in some cases. My point was that the mechanicals do NOT make a hunter a better shot than with fixed blades if they are tuned properly.
    Expandables do not make you a better hunter thats for sure. I am a fan of the NAP Spitfires. I think Jack Brittingham used one for his big brown bear. A lot of my hunting buddies like the Rage 2.0. Hope you like them.

  15. #15
    Member akgun&ammo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    983

    Default

    I have tried expandable broadheads on whitetail. And the one I settled on has a 1 3/8 " cut. My fixed head also left a 1 3/8" cut....
    What did change was the amount of damage inside the animal, with the expandable both lungs were cut like shreds around the arroew hole, where I usually see what looks like broadhead blade cut marks with my fixed. On thinking... I believe that was due to spending arrow energy opening up, and cutting slower than a fixed will penetrate. Farthest I had to track a deer with either was about 100 yards. And I don't think I could tell the difference in performance of either type.
    Therefore, I think that allowing mechanicle broadheads for hunting would not be a problem. Exspecially with the newer cut on impact expandables.

    But nothing will take the place of the three P's of hunting.

    Just my thoughts,
    Chris

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,971

    Default

    Before I order some NAP Spitfire's does the logic of a heavier point gets better penetration hold with expandables? Is there some reason speed over weight contributes to good performance with the Spitfire? The NAP web site says it needs >40 Ft lbs of energy so my 40lb recurve may not work with them, but kills really well with 2 blade cut on contact.

    I found some reviews where the person was using 85gr and 100gr Spitfires and was getting full penetration of whitetail. I was very encourged by very few reports of failure to open and only a few cases where a shoulder shot stopped the arrow. It looks like a lot of folks are using the spitfire successfully...at least according to reviews.

    One last question...how well do they come out of a block target?
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

  17. #17

    Default

    Before I order some NAP Spitfire's does the logic of a heavier point gets better penetration hold with expandables?
    Heavy point only helps stabilize the arrow in flight quicker so it hits straight-on. The extra weight is a bonus for maintaining forward energy.
    The NAP web site says it needs >40 Ft lbs of energy so my 40lb recurve may not work with them, but kills really well with 2 blade cut on contact.
    This says it all. I'm certain your recurve doesn't put out 40 ft lbs of kinetic energy but you already have the advantage. Kinetic energy is important but design plays a huge role when talking arrow penetration.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Sandpoint, ID
    Posts
    1,971

    Default

    The plan.....I should only experiment with one thing at a time, but I'm going to set up a single cam Martin Exile for FOBs and a double cam Martin Silencer for 125 gr Spitfires both at 55 lbs. I could do 60lbs but I've never had an arrow stay inside a whitetail with 50lbs and a 2 blade cut on contact so that should be a fair test.

    I have two months to get these things shooting right before the season opens in September. I usually shoot a couple doe early in the season so I'll use them for experimenting with the Spitfires.

    Do the Spitfires with practice blades come out of the Block easily without tearing it up?
    Somewhere along the way I have lost the ability to act politically correct. If you should find it, please feel free to keep it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •