A while ago I tried to apply some maths and geometry to this subject that lead into areas of propeller design that quite honestly left me thinking even if I had paid more attention at school I still would not understand what I was reading.
There are so many variable in this argument that frankly say ‘no one size fits all’ if you have a combination that works for you use it.
A couple of conclusions I made for arrows of same mass and profile travelling at the same velocity were:
1. With straight fletching and single bevel, on soft tissue insufficient force is exerted on the bevel to generate rotation over 300 mm. of contact with soft tissue.
2. With helical fletching and single bevel, the rotation of the arrow in flight far exceeds any ‘predicted’ rotation of the broadhead in the target.
3. With straight fletching and double bevel, performance in soft tissue should in theory be almost identical to 1.
4. With helical fletching and double bevel, again results in theory as at 2.
5. Common finding terminal velocity of arrows with straight fletching will be higher thus retaining more kinetic energy, no suprise there and agrees with Doc Ashby.
6. Only variable being the profile of the broadhead and of that variable the only significant component being profile of the tip.
My conclusion is that the profile of the tip is what gives the single bevel an advantage on dense tissue such as cartilage and bone. So the bigger, stronger and tougher the beastie you are hunting the this will give an advantage so long as you put it in the thick stuff.
If I may add, a single bevel ‘tanto’ (hope that’s the right description) leading into a double bevel would be interesting to see.
That’s all I have to add, and no I did not save any of the data I generated.
