Comments on Muzzy phantom Broad Head" (4 total)  
  Comment Sorted by
Date Written
Re: Re: Welcome to Epinions
by morilla, morilla is an Advisor on Epinions in Sports & Outdoors
As stated on the virtually duplicate review you posted this morning...

Duplicate reviews are against the site rules...

http://www.epinions.com/review/PHANTOM_100_4_BLD_Broad_Head/content_530618224260

"The Muzzy Phantom Broad Head is a great broad head for any type of game. Whether it be big game such as elk or whether it be the small game being whitetail deer. I know someone who shot an elk with the Muzzy Phantom Broad Head and that elk went no further than 100yards. These broad heads come in many different grains such as 75 grain, 100 grain, and 135 grain. These broad heads from experience will put down big deer in their tracks. I shot a big buck last year in the back end not in the shoulder and it tore through the ham and that deer went down as soon as it got hit. These broad heads have replacement blades that can be easily sharpened. You might want to practice from the adjustment of field tips due to the bigness of the broad head.
These broad heads are known definitely for bone splitting penetration. They will go straight through two shoulders and more. They come in packs of three and in packs of six. The pack of three can be bought at any Cabela’s for $24.99 and the six pack for $35.99. They will fit most quivers, but some quivers have holdings that are too small. You may have to buy bigger pads for your quivers due to the bigness of the broad head.
Compared to Muzzy MX4; Phantom broad heads are bigger. Having a bigger blade means more cutting action. On the other hand, the MX4 has much smaller blades making smaller holes with less blood to track. I definitely recommend Muzzy Phantom Broad Heads to any bow hunter who wants their deer to go down.
"

Simply adding/changing a sentence or so on a review and reposting it is not updating or 'editing' a previous review. Bear in mind...

"When submitting content to Epinions whether in the form of reviews...the following are inappropriate...

Publishing the same review more than once. A review may only be published more than once if the review compares two products and there is at least a 100 word difference between the two reviews
"

In addition, you still have some 'factual' and content issues which are unaddressed and detailed in my commentary below. Please make careful note of those issues and, should you wish to update your review(s), then simply use the "update" link to the right of your review title on the review page.

I hope that helps.
Nov 10, 2010
7:25 am PST

Re: Welcome to Epinions
by a1992
I have changed what has been said in youre comment. I have stated my past experience with this product.
Nov 10, 2010
6:44 am PST

Welcome to Epinions - The Short Version
by morilla, morilla is an Advisor on Epinions in Sports & Outdoors
If you are interested in editing your review to increase it's 'helpfulness,' then see the specifics in my comment below.

The short version is...

When standard terms are used "out of the ordinary;" the limited specifics which are noted differ from the manufacturer's/retailers'; the paucity of related, first-hand experience is highlighted by more information related to someone else's use; details are 'glossed over' with vague descriptions; and 'ad copy' is heavily relied on...

There are a number of questions left in the minds of readers (and raters).

Unlike other, so-called 'review' sites. Epinions has slightly higher standards regarding the quality (and accuracy) of information presented in Regular Reviews. If all you are primarily interested in providing is a series of assertions tantamount to - "I like it. I love it. You should buy some more of it." - then the site provides the Express Review format for such purposes.

I hope that helps.
Nov 8, 2010
8:40 pm PST

Welcome to Epinions
by morilla, morilla is an Advisor on Epinions in Sports & Outdoors
You've got something of a start, sort of.

What you want to do is include enough accurate specifics and analysis based on personal experience to provide readers (and raters) with information they can't simply get from the catalog. Generalized, vague assertions aren't the same as 'information' derived from personal experience; especially when you mix in lines 'cribbed' from the 'catalog' such as: "These broad heads are known definitely for bone splitting penetration."

The idea is that if you're going to quote the 'catalog copy,' you should use it as a basis to say how your experience jibes or diverges from what the catalog claims; using specifics from that experience rather than saying "Yeah, it works like that."

For instance, the only 'analysis' you provide based on personal experience is: "These broad heads from experience will put down big deer in their tracks."

By way of contrast, you actually provide more detail when citing someone else's experience: "I know someone who shot an elk with the Muzzy Phantom Broad Head and that elk went no further than 100yards."

Reviews are supposed to be based primarily on your experience; not on what you've read and/or what someone 'you know' has experienced. In this case, you don't even indicate that the Phantom Broadhead that they use was the 100 gr.

Another issue related to such generalities is that you haven't even noted your actual use of the specific, listed product; i.e., the 100 grain, 4-blade.

When you say they are available in different weights, are those the same product actually listed for review, just in a different weight - OR - is there a difference in the blades and even in the name?

In fact, are the weights you cite correct or would variations of the blade count and name be available in 85, 100, and 125 gr. weights rather than "75 grain, 100 grain, and 135 grain?" Isn't there a 220 gr. version?

Again, to get the 85 grain weight don't you have to recognize the Phantom MX 2-blade, which you indicate is a different concept: "Compared to Muzzy MX4; Phantom broad heads are bigger."

You're 'definition' of big vs. small game is 'interesting.' You initially say "The Muzzy Phantom Broad Head is a great broad head for any type of game." That immediately throws up a question mark in that "any type of game" can be a rather large spectrum. Then you apparantly caveat it by defining "big game" as 'elk' and "small game" as 'whitetail deer.'

DEER-sized animals are not usually held to be "small game." Such a definition usually indicates birds (duck, pheasant, geese, grouse, etc.), rabbits, squirrels, etc. "Big game" usually covers deer and elk, all the way up to elephants. While it is a good thing to define what you mean, such use of these terms does leave readers/raters a bit askance as to your familiarity with the sport.

In many ways, you actually create more questions than you answer. For instance...

"You might want to practice from the adjustment of field tips due to the bigness of the broad head." - While one should practice with the same weight field point as they weight of broadhead they use, it is generally held that 'practice' with broadheads comes with a number of caveats. Making sure your broadheads fly true and 'the same' as the field points is a good thing; but, one should never use broadheads used in practice for actual hunting. Given the difference in price between broadheads and field points, such practice is usually limited to one or two specimens. The type of target will usually need to be different than for field points. Etc.

"These broad heads from experience will put down big deer in their tracks." - Huh? That doesn't even happen all the time with rifles?! How 'big' are you talking about? "Putting a 'big' deer down in its tracks" creates an impression different than "once hit, the deer took 'x' number of steps, ran for 30 yards, then dropped."

"These broad heads have replacement blades that can be easily sharpened." - How much do they cost? How are they replaced? How do you sharpen them?

"They will fit most quivers, but some quivers have holdings that are too small. You may have to buy bigger pads for your quivers due to the bigness of the broad head." - That's pretty vague. What quiver do you use?

"Compared to Muzzy MX4; Phantom broad heads are bigger." - What is the actual difference in size? You don't mention what size the Phantom is?

What arrows are you using with these? What bow are you using? What range(s) have you shot animals from? What animals have you actually shot; just deer or deer and what else?

What I'm getting at is that reviews must convey specific information, with accuracy. When terms are used "out of the ordinary;" the limited specifics which are noted differ from the manufacturer's/retailers'; the paucity of related, first-hand experience is highlighted by more information related to someone else's use; details are 'glossed over' with vague descriptions; and 'ad copy' is heavily relied on...

There are a number of questions left in the minds of readers (and raters).

Unlike other, so-called 'review' sites. Epinions has slightly higher standards regarding the quality of information presented in Regular Reviews. If all you are primarily interested in providing is a series of assertions tantamount to - "I like it. I love it. You should buy some more of it." - then the site provides the Express Review format for such purposes.

I hope that helps.
Nov 8, 2010
8:37 pm PST