I've read that the latest retractable broadheads are absolutely deadly (the first prototypes invented years ago sucked). Far more effective than standard triple or 4-blade fixed and even better than cut-on-contact. I've heard many, many accounts of deer falling where the arrow hit em'; no running or anything. Also, the retractables leave major blood trails. I understand the WA Dept. of Fish and Game won't allow their use for fear that poorly shot animals hit in non-vital areas may not allow the arrow to work it's way free (whatever that means) or be removed by the deer/elk itself, due to the barbed nature of the design. However, given the fact that the retractables fly like field points and are inherently more accurate than standard broadheads, it only makes sense to allow hunters to use them. Why not??? We want archers making clean, fast kills with accurate hits, right? We don't want animals lost due to inaccuracy or inability to find them due to a light blood trail. Archers still have to get close and still have to practice with their bows. Why not allow the use of these improved and more deadly broadheads?? I only see them as decreasing lost animals and resulting in faster kills. What is bad about that? Polite opinions welcome.

I've wondered about this same topic myself. I think you are correct in that the state thinks this type of broadhead does have a barbed characteristic to it. In being far more effective than a three or four blade fixed I would think that in cutting efficiency they would be the same. If you compare a fixed with a retractable in the same cutting Dia. say 1.5 then the cutting Dia. is the same. So if they both have the same cutting Dia. what would make the retractable better in that respect. In your next statement you say you have heard many, many accounts of deer falling where the arrow hit them.How would a retractable drop an animal in it's tracks anymore than a fixed. That is purely shot placement nothing else.In your next statement you say The retractables leave major blood trails. If we are still compareing these two styles of broadheads as the same weight and cutting Dia. which you would have to if you wan't properly compare the two. So in reply to leaving major blood trails. If the cutting Dia. is the same and the animal was shot in the same place what would make the retractables leave a better blood trail or more blood. Cutting surface is cutting surface it has nothing to do with the blade being fixed or retractable it has to do with the amount of cutting surface. In your next statement you say that retractables fly like field points and are inherently more accurate than standard broadheads. This statement I would agree with but only for someone who's bow is not properly tuned and or the draw weight and spine of the arrow and broadhead weight are not all properly matched. Therefore giving that particular arrow more forgivenes in it's flight. The only thing I see better about these retractable broadheads is what I stated above in giving more foregiving flight to the arrow with a bow that is not properly tuned or tuned to the best of that persons abillity to do so. So since I would think that the retractables would be more foregiving with a bow that is not properly tuned or tuned to the best of that persons abillity makeing the arrow more accurate then I would be all for it. I think we owe it to the game we pursue to make the best shot placement we can on that animal. Which this is what it all boils down to SHOT PLACEMENT !!!

Coho-
Your logic sounds good to me. I am a beginning archer (like you couldn't tell, right) and based my questions on info I read on pg 26 of the March 2003 issue of Bowhunter magazine in an article about finding wounded deer, by CJ Winand. If you check it out, he goes through several reasons why he thinks retractables are the key. However, like you, he said shot placement is the key to any broadhead. Thanks for the info. Brass

I don't hunt with a bow, but I see no reason for all of the prohibition or limitation of this equipment. I have read articles on it, seems to work. Just let us hunt.

My idea of big game hunting regs are:

The season is opens this date and closes that date.

You can shoot bucks, or does, or some antler restrictions.

Use any muzzleloader you want.

Use any bow you want, yes, even crossbows.

Use any rifle you want .223 or bigger.

Use any pistol .357 Mag or bigger.

This hunt area is closed.

This area is limited to shotguns, bows and muzzleloaders.

You get one deer and elk a year.

Don't hunt from the road.

Don't drink or do drugs while hunting.

There may be a few others, but I think there is too much regulation, too many opportunities for well meaning hunters to make an error, too little public land available for hunting. Let us hunt and don't make us take a law class to understand the regs. I have passed the AHE class and have never had a game violation. Just let us hunt and let us choose the equipment within reason.

Dogfish, I agree with you. There are way to many restrictions. Just let us hunt. I also have passed teh AHE course. I have never been in a game violation at all. I like your egs lets try to get them into print. I would think that the game dept. would want each user group to use the most efficient method possible for each weapon??

Brassonbrass, I used to bow hunt. I have seen numerous studies on mechanicle braodheads. They are much better these days than when they first came out. They don't penetrate as well as other broadheads. But placed in the right spot they will do their job. If you are panning on hunting elk I woldn't use them. But that is just me. I think tehy should be legal in this state also. Thecnically they aren't barbe they are hinged and therfore don't have a problem being romoved.
Buck