Magnus Broadhead Battle video

[Bowhuntr64]

Just did a test of two different Magnus heads. Check it out. Hope it’s helpful.

 

[rookhawk]

Huge fan of Magnus broadhead for maximizing penetration based on Dr. Ashby’s research.

The lingering question is why would you serrate the blades reducing the chief selling point, penetration? If you are going the direction of serration, why not go further from penetration into max blood loss and cutting with a mechanical?

 

[jeff]

Penetration in tissue is reduced with serration it just looks cool and is gimmick.

 

[Bowhuntr64]

Huge fan of Magnus broadhead for maximizing penetration based on Dr. Ashby’s research.

The lingering question is why would you serrate the blades reducing the chief selling point, penetration? If you are going the direction of serration, why not go further from penetration into max blood loss and cutting with a mechanical?

Well, with all due respect, I think your mistaken in your assumption that a serrated edge will not penetrate as well. Why do you think that? Mike Sohm of Magnus has done so much testing on this and found just the opposite to be true. And Dr Ashby, while providing a lot of great material on the subject of broadheads, is not accurate in all of his assumptions and conclusions. A “3:1 mechanical advantage” is one of them. That’s a good principle in leveraging but not penetrating; it has been disproven many times over. A longer head like that is a great way to make a head heavier for trad shooting or for heavy arrow builds, but it’s not necessarily an advantage over shorter heads in penetration.

 

[jeff]

Serrations give a place to collect bone shards that increase friction and resistance.

 

[rookhawk]

Well, with all due respect, I think your mistaken in your assumption that a serrated edge will not penetrate as well. Why do you think that? Mike Sohm of Magnus has done so much testing on this and found just the opposite to be true. And Dr Ashby, while providing a lot of great material on the subject of broadheads, is not accurate in all of his assumptions and conclusions. A “3:1 mechanical advantage” is one of them. That’s a good principle in leveraging but not penetrating; it has been disproven many times over. A longer head like that is a great way to make a head heavier for trad shooting or for heavy arrow builds, but it’s not necessarily an advantage over shorter heads in penetration.

Serrations in theory create greater blood loss because they create rough cuts in tissue. These cuts supposedly bleed faster than two razor cuts from a standard magnus stinger.

But again, the purpose of a Magnus Stinger is to be the slipperiest, fastest, deepest cutting broadhead to ensure clean pass-throughs. Their shape is designed for people with underpowered bows, whether that's my kid drawing 22" at 33lbs hunting white tail deer, or the safari hunter drawing only 85lbs at 30" for elephant. In both cases, penetration is key. (I shoot 570gr arrows with the same 2-blade 100gr stingers as my son for North American hunting, just because they fly so darned well)

In the above three scenarios: elephant hunter, kid hunting deer, and me drawing 32" at 62lbs, I'm the only one that can afford less penetration. I in theory could use the buzz cut setup and still get 100% pass throughs, or I could use bleeders, or I could use mechanicals. But if I was using bleeders or mechanicals or serrated edges, I'm not sure that I'd use a stinger at all, right? If I can be wasteful and inefficient with cutting and penetration, there are 1000s of broadheads for me to choose from.

Maybe you think I'm black-and-white in my thinking, but I just don't get the serrated edge product in the Stinger Lineup. I feel like the point of a stinger is to state that penetration, breaking bone, and passing through is the entire purpose. The serrations reduce the features that Magnus is known for, doesn't it?

 

[Bowhuntr64]

Serrations in theory create greater blood loss because they create rough cuts in tissue. These cuts supposedly bleed faster than two razor cuts from a standard magnus stinger.

But again, the purpose of a Magnus Stinger is to be the slipperiest, fastest, deepest cutting broadhead to ensure clean pass-throughs. Their shape is designed for people with underpowered bows, whether that's my kid drawing 22" at 33lbs hunting white tail deer, or the safari hunter drawing only 85lbs at 30" for elephant. In both cases, penetration is key. (I shoot 570gr arrows with the same 2-blade 100gr stingers as my son for North American hunting, just because they fly so darned well)

In the above three scenarios: elephant hunter, kid hunting deer, and me drawing 32" at 62lbs, I'm the only one that can afford less penetration. I in theory could use the buzz cut setup and still get 100% pass throughs, or I could use bleeders, or I could use mechanicals. But if I was using bleeders or mechanicals or serrated edges, I'm not sure that I'd use a stinger at all, right? If I can be wasteful and inefficient with cutting and penetration, there are 1000s of broadheads for me to choose from.

Maybe you think I'm black-and-white in my thinking, but I just don't get the serrated edge product in the Stinger Lineup. I feel like the point of a stinger is to state that penetration, breaking bone, and passing through is the entire purpose. The serrations reduce the features that Magnus is known for, doesn't it?

This is a good discussion; I hope it’s not coming across argumentative to anyone. I certainly don’t intend for it to be. I love talking about this stuff. Somehow, in your mind, you think that serrations are intended to produce a jagged or rougher cut, thus impeding penetration. This can be true in some old jagged daggers, or in a chain saw, but is not true in most knives or in most broadheads. The purpose of a knife or broadhead serration is just the opposite; it is to produce a more efficient cut, still smooth and clean. Just google serrated vs smooth blades, you will find a lot of research on this. Serrations create multiple sharper edges, all still in the exact same plane, and on the same line, thus improving cutting ability. There is more blade cutting surface with a serrated blade, over the same length of blade due to the grooves. When you pic up a steak knife it is typically serrated for this reason. A serrated blade is more effective and efficient in slicing whereas a straight blade is more efficient and effective in chopping. Broadheads can do both, but they primarily slice. Also a serrated blade loses its edge and cutting ability much slower than a straight edge. This is due to the increased cutting surface and protected divots. It won’t show up on slicing paper but will on slicing tissue. A serrated blade doesn’t need to be sharpened nearly as often as a straight blade. They are just as slippery and just as effective at penetrating as the straight edges, but hold their edge more effectively, thus increasing their ability to penetrate deeper and cut more effectively throughout a medium.

 

[rookhawk]

This is a good discussion; I hope it’s not coming across argumentative to anyone. I certainly don’t intend for it to be. I love talking about this stuff. Somehow, in your mind, you think that serrations are intended to produce a jagged or rougher cut, thus impeding penetration. This can be true in some old jagged daggers, or in a chain saw, but is not true in most knives or in most broadheads. The purpose of a knife or broadhead serration is just the opposite; it is to produce a more efficient cut, still smooth and clean. Just google serrated vs smooth blades, you will find a lot of research on this. Serrations create multiple sharper edges, all still in the exact same plane, and on the same line, thus improving cutting ability. There is more blade cutting surface with a serrated blade, over the same length of blade due to the grooves. When you pic up a steak knife it is typically serrated for this reason. A serrated blade is more effective and efficient in slicing whereas a straight blade is more efficient and effective in chopping. Broadheads can do both, but they primarily slice. Also a serrated blade loses its edge and cutting ability much slower than a straight edge. This is due to the increased cutting surface and protected divots. It won’t show up on slicing paper but will on slicing tissue. A serrated blade doesn’t need to be sharpened nearly as often as a straight blade. They are just as slippery and just as effective at penetrating as the straight edges, but hold their edge more effectively, thus increasing their ability to penetrate deeper and cut more effectively throughout a medium.

Very much enjoy the dialogue, I think everyone is enjoying a friendly debate/discussion and I appreciate you chiming in.

So if what you say is true, and I do struggle with that, because its logical in one side of my mind (steak knife example) yet counter intuitive (my kitchen knives cut way better with a razor edge), why don't we use serrated edge blades for elephant and buffalo? And why does Magnus recommend the 100gr stinger to my kid drawing the lightest/shortest bow you can possibly use for hunting (we eek out every single fps...he's 9) instead of suggesting buzz cuts? Wouldn't the saw blade be more like to fold over and slow penetration if it hits cartilage or bone? Wouldn't the saw blade be more likely to deflect in dense tissue/cartilage when compared to the smooth linear straight razor approach?

I thought the serrations maximized wound opening as the selling point, even if it cost you penetration a bit.

I appreciate you weighing in on this. I have 3 kids that love to hunt and we have spent more time than anyone I know creating ethical shooting rigs for very small people. Tiny details that eek out more penetration and speed are considered at every possible turn when a kid is 8-9-10 and we live in no-rifle hunting states. It's archery hunting or its nothing at all.

 

[BSO Dave]

Serrations give a place to collect bone shards that increase friction and resistance.

This can be true in some old jagged daggers, or in a chain saw, but is not true in most knives or in most broadheads.

WTF? This contention cannot be substantiated, a really makes no sense... Friction is friction... The only variables in the equations are the amount of surface area we are taking about. The discussion may be interesting, but there is no denying the laws of engineering physics where it has been proven that more angles create more surface area subject to friction, and the more surface area you have, the more friction you create. More energy will then be necessary to overcome that friction to produce the desired effect.

Now, you can debate whether or not a serrated blade can inflict a more damaging cut than a smooth bladed surface, but a big part of that equation would be the actual material you are cutting. As an example, a serrated blade cuts through a loaf of bread more efficiently than a smooth blade precisely because of the serrations that catch and tear more surface area of the soft material like the bread.. The blade design cuts that particular material more efficiently, but also requires more energy to do so... This is also why they do not make hand saws with chain saw blades on them, or why we use machete blades to chop rather than saw. These basic principles of physics are not deniable.

 

[rookhawk]

I'm not denying your logic and I tend to be in your camp at present in this discussion.

What I'm wondering in defense of the original post, is this:

If the buzz cut blade doesn't have jagged saw blades, but rather the edge is relieved by semi-circular cuts, would that reduce friction and drag because less razor blade is cutting and the voids between blade contact are reducing this resistance? (which would undermine the argument of MORE blood loss from jagged cutting, rather it is providing less resistance because of less blade contact with tissue)

WTF? This contention cannot be substantiated, a really makes no sense... Friction is friction... The only variables in the equations are the amount of surface area we are taking about. The discussion may be interesting, but there is no denying the laws of engineering physics where it has been proven that more angles create more surface area subject to friction, and the more surface area you have, the more friction you create. More energy will then be necessary to overcome that friction to produce the desired effect.

Now, you can debate whether or not a serrated blade can inflict a more damaging cut than a smooth bladed surface, but a big part of that equation would be the actual material you are cutting. As an example, a serrated blade cuts through a loaf of bread more efficiently than a smooth blade precisely because of the serrations that catch and tear more surface area of the soft material like the bread.. The blade design cuts that particular material more efficiently, but also requires more energy to do so... This is also why they do not make hand saws with chain saw blades on them, or why we use machete blades to chop rather than saw. These basic principles of physics are not deniable.

 

[BSO Dave]

If the buzz cut blade doesn't have jagged saw blades, but rather the edge is relieved by semi-circular cuts, would that reduce friction and drag because less razor blade is cutting and the voids between blade contact are reducing this resistance?

You could certainly argue that the particular style of the Buzz-cut's serration pattern creates less surface areas compared to other styles of serration, but the laws of physics still dictate that a smooth-bladed edge would still offer less friction than any form of a serrated edge design. Using the circular-serrations you refer to in the design of the Buzz-cut as an example, I would agree that the circular pattern would certainly appear to offer less drag compared to a sharp-angled "jagged" serration design, but any serrations would still increases the surface area over a smooth blade design. Angles, indentations, serrations, or whatever you want to call these patterns all create an increased surface area (and therefore friction) regardless if their shape.

This is also why it is so critical to penetration to use a broadhead with a low-angled design, or a smaller cutting diameter over steep angled or wide bladed designs. I'm not referring to the length of the broadhead tip to ferrule thread, but the width of the angle making the point. This is perfectly demonstrated by the example of most expandable broadhead designs which create an enormous amount of friction. That big wide blade set trying to fully deploy acts like a parachute upon contact with flesh and bone. If the hunter's set up doesn't have enough energy, foc, and mass necessary to overcome that friction, the result is very poor penetration.

 

[jeff]

It would be interesting to test the Buzzcut against the regular Stinger with out serrations and see if there was enough difference to notice.

 

[rookhawk]

It would be interesting to test the Buzzcut against the regular Stinger with out serrations and see if there was enough difference to notice.

Agreed. There are other forums that argued another "con" against serrations that would be hard to test other than by rough survey.

There is a claim that the buzz cuts penetrate equal or marginally less, but the buzz cuts cause more clotting than the razor type cut of the classic two blade.

I'd like to see the gel test first to determine if any difference in penetration exists, then if buzz cut wins, evaluate the clotting allegation.

In the end, any two blade is probably MUCH BETTER than any other option, buzz cuts or not. The value in getting to the bottom of this is for under-powered bow hunters which fall into two camps: 1.) The kid trying to hunt deer and turkey, 2.) The adult trying to hunt dangerous game...all bows are under powered for this and every bit of penetration is really important.

 

[jeff]

Traditional wisdom was the smoother the cut the less clotting. My wife and I have had exceptional results with the original Stinger with the small bleeder blades.