WaterfowlForum.Net

jehler wrote:Better
http://youtu.be/pAFcl3SamHc

Saw that the other day. I want one now.

Sooooo... that's a "no" from everybody on the broadheads? They do look like the biohazard symbol so they are probably dangerous.

3legged_lab wrote:Sooooo... that's a "no" from everybody on the broadheads? They do look like the biohazard symbol so they are probably dangerous.

I would probably shoot them before I picked these.

The Duck Hammer wrote:

FlintRiverFowler wrote:If you'll notice in the video you have to shoot the hog in the temple to kill it.


Sent using tapatalk

With no exit wound. Bullet hardly enters the skull.

100% energy transfer. Ideal.

The Duck Hammer wrote:

3legged_lab wrote:Sooooo... that's a "no" from everybody on the broadheads? They do look like the biohazard symbol so they are probably dangerous.

I would probably shoot them before I picked these.

What the hell would you use that for?

assateague wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

FlintRiverFowler wrote:If you'll notice in the video you have to shoot the hog in the temple to kill it.


Sent using tapatalk

With no exit wound. Bullet hardly enters the skull.

100% energy transfer. Ideal.

Not when that energy transfer is far less than just slinging an arrow at it in the first place.
100% of 5 is less than 20% of 50. Just as a simplified example.

NuffDaddy wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

3legged_lab wrote:Sooooo... that's a "no" from everybody on the broadheads? They do look like the biohazard symbol so they are probably dangerous.

I would probably shoot them before I picked these.

What the hell would you use that for?

A broadhead dumbass.

Anything which explodes ups the potential energy by a factor of 7.4 So it'd take roughly a 4,021 grain arrow/broadhead combo to equal one of the exploding .38s.

The Duck Hammer wrote:

NuffDaddy wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

3legged_lab wrote:Sooooo... that's a "no" from everybody on the broadheads? They do look like the biohazard symbol so they are probably dangerous.

I would probably shoot them before I picked these.

What the hell would you use that for?

A broadhead dumbass.

Easy now.




It's just a field tip with some dumb spreader barb thing on it.

NuffDaddy wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

NuffDaddy wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

3legged_lab wrote:Sooooo... that's a "no" from everybody on the broadheads? They do look like the biohazard symbol so they are probably dangerous.

I would probably shoot them before I picked these.

What the hell would you use that for?

A broadhead dumbass.

Easy now.




It's just a field tip with some dumb spreader barb thing on it.

Its a field point with razor wire on it. Its called the atom. The idea behind it is that the razor wire will cut through soft tissue but flex around hard bone. Therefore allowing the arrow to go all the way through even if it nicks a bone.

The Duck Hammer wrote:

assateague wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

FlintRiverFowler wrote:If you'll notice in the video you have to shoot the hog in the temple to kill it.


Sent using tapatalk

With no exit wound. Bullet hardly enters the skull.

100% energy transfer. Ideal.

Not when that energy transfer is far less than just slinging an arrow at it in the first place.
100% of 5 is less than 20% of 50. Just as a simplified example.

Do you have references for these stats?

The Duck Hammer wrote:

NuffDaddy wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

NuffDaddy wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:[quote="3legged_lab"]Sooooo... that's a "no" from everybody on the broadheads? They do look like the biohazard symbol so they are probably dangerous.

I would probably shoot them before I picked these.

What the hell would you use that for?

A broadhead dumbass.

Easy now.




It's just a field tip with some dumb spreader barb thing on it.

Its a field point with razor wire on it. Its called the atom. The idea behind it is that the razor wire will cut through soft tissue but flex around hard bone. Therefore allowing the arrow to go all the way through even if it nicks a bone.[/quote]
Oh. I thought that was just round wire. Doesn't look sharp in the picture. Still wouldn't trust that to cut a deer up.

Here's a better pic

This thread was fantastic!

AKPirate wrote:This thread was fantastic!

:lol::lol:

AKPirate wrote:This thread was fantastic!

What do you mean was?

The Duck Hammer wrote:

AKPirate wrote:This thread was fantastic!

What do you mean was?

With those arrow bullets you would only have to nick an elephant and their would be guts everywhere. Would make the butchering job easier too.

3legged_lab wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:Not when that energy transfer is far less than just slinging an arrow at it in the first place.
100% of 5 is less than 20% of 50. Just as a simplified example.

Do you have references for these stats?

Look at the devastation
http://youtu.be/7002QS1pt4M

Bad. Ass.

assateague wrote:Bad. Ass.

undeniable

Anything that reminds me of the Duke boys is awesome. Curious as to how they would be classified for legality.

We should get Westie to make us some but instead of a .357 I'd want a 20g slug surrounded by .22's all set to fire at the point of impact.

3legged_lab wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

assateague wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

FlintRiverFowler wrote:If you'll notice in the video you have to shoot the hog in the temple to kill it.


Sent using tapatalk

With no exit wound. Bullet hardly enters the skull.

100% energy transfer. Ideal.

Not when that energy transfer is far less than just slinging an arrow at it in the first place.
100% of 5 is less than 20% of 50. Just as a simplified example.

Do you have references for these stats?

No its basic math. Get a damn calculator and see if I am right.

AKPirate wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

AKPirate wrote:This thread was fantastic!

What do you mean was?

With those arrow bullets you would only have to nick an elephant and their would be guts everywhere. Would make the butchering job easier too.

Nope, all you would do is piss off an elephant.

jehler wrote:

assateague wrote:Bad. Ass.

undeniable

Completely deniable and still stupid.

The Duck Hammer wrote:

jehler wrote:Better
http://youtu.be/pAFcl3SamHc

Worthless. Why wouldn't you just shoot the mother fucker with a gun in the first place?

THIS

The guy I was hunting with Sat was upset I "shot that turkey too soon". Why?, I ask
"I wanted to see the show"

Bullshit,says I. I came to hunt, not play games.

Pissing around with gimmick arrows does not interest me personally. I am a gun guy, arrows are the reason the indians lost.

The Libertarian in me says that if you fellas want to do it, good for you. You know I am never one to judge others.

The Duck Hammer wrote:

3legged_lab wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

assateague wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:[quote="FlintRiverFowler"]If you'll notice in the video you have to shoot the hog in the temple to kill it.


Sent using tapatalk

With no exit wound. Bullet hardly enters the skull.

100% energy transfer. Ideal.

Not when that energy transfer is far less than just slinging an arrow at it in the first place.
100% of 5 is less than 20% of 50. Just as a simplified example.

Do you have references for these stats?

No its basic math. Get a damn calculator and see if I am right.[/quote]
I don't need a calculator to figure out 100% of 5, but what I don't know is how you got those numbers. You made em up.

Tomkat wrote:

The Duck Hammer wrote:

jehler wrote:Better
http://youtu.be/pAFcl3SamHc

Worthless. Why wouldn't you just shoot the mother fucker with a gun in the first place?

THIS

The guy I was hunting with Sat was upset I "shot that turkey too soon". Why?, I ask
"I wanted to see the show"

Bullshit,says I. I came to hunt, not play games.

Pissing around with gimmick arrows does not interest me personally. I am a gun guy, arrows are the reason the indians lost.

The Libertarian in me says that if you fellas want to do it, good for you. You know I am never one to judge others.

At least I can walk in and buy arrows off the shelf, no shortage on them. Dont have to pass a background check to buy a bow. When they come and take your guns away my silent killer will still be handy.

3legged_lab wrote:I don't need a calculator to figure out 100% of 5, but what I don't know is how you got those numbers. You made em up.

Hell yea I made them up. Hints

simplified example.