It’s for good reason that mechanical broadheads are outlawed in several states and limited in others. I came within an inch of single-handedly getting them outlawed here in CO a few years ago and had I received the support of CBA it would have sailed through. But of course, that group is generally on the wrong side of every ethics issue and strongly opposed me, including one rep claiming that Dr. Ashby’s studies were all designed to help sell “his” ABS Ashby broadhead. Even so, if I could have made the finaly meeting where the vote was taken, in Denver (a full day’s drive from here) I believe we could have gotten rid of these animal-torture devices. In that regard — giving a damn about the animals we hunt — the modern hi-tech bowhunting marketplace, including the magazines that bristle with ads for all this junk — well it just makes me sick to even be peripherally linked to it by association in the inexperienced public mind. Sorry, but it’s a sore spot. We owe the animals we hunt the cleanest and fastest possible deaths, and anything that works against that is wrong wrong wrong. From a “practical” pov, these things exist thanks to the obsession with the hi-tech crowd for faster, flatter-shooting arrows for longer and longer shots. With slower moving trad set-ups they are absolutely pointless since only the biggest and poorest designed broadheads will wind-plane at trad speeds. To sum up Ashby’s test results for open-on-impact heads — no other broadhead design even came close to suffering as many mechanical failures, and even when they “worked” they provided the poorest penetration of any design. Get a nice proven two-blade design and simplify your life. And this is NOT a personal indictment aimed at anyone who is unaware of the problems with these things — but rather an indictment of the hi-tech marketplace. Cheers, dave