This is sort of why the question occurred to me. A relatively tiny cut broadhead run through both lungs can kill about anything. Poke a hole in the chest and it is entirely possible to collapse the lungs and kill the animal, no matter what it is, without bleeding. Bleeding is of course better, because it can greatly hasten death. Blood pressure is a great way to deflate lungs permanently. While a bigger cut will do a better job of creating and maintaining a pneumo-thorax, it is not so clear that a bigger cut will
deflate lungs any better or much better. I am of the opinion that the bigger the cut the better because bigger holes are less likely to plug and bigger cuts are more likely to cut arteries and cause more bleeding. But, I know people who always use Slick Tricks or Montecs that just are not all that big, and they kill a lot of deer and have no more problems with them than other competent shooters use much larger heads. I have absolutely zero empirical evidence that biggeris better, I have shot enough deer with smaller heads to know that they can work every bit as well as huge heads. Been there, done that and ate the deer. Had deer go down where they stood with smallish 2 blade heads and huge heads.
It seems pretty reasonable to me that big cuts will stand out with enough deer killed, but with only a couple dozen + deer killed with arrows, the numbers of those killed by me do not support that. From my numbers, it could be very well that a smallis 3/4 blade head is such an over whelming insult to lungs that bigger just doesn't make much difference.
