Know there were lots of questions around the performance of both these BHs. Thought I would share my experience.
Used the T3s last year on two Impala rams, and the NAP KZ on a Kudu cow this past weekend.
All shots were full broadside, with a full arrow pass through on the one Impala, a BH pass through on the Kudu and the last Impala ended up with the T3 lodged in the far shoulder.
On all three shots the entry wounds were massive with full blade deployment on all shots. In my opinion the physical wound on the NAP was greater than the T3, but the T3 resulted in a bigger blood trail, probably since it opens up the wound, both were heart shots. (Both animals fell expired within sight therefore no follow up required).
Both broadheads punched straight through ribs with no damage to the ferrule or the blades and were re-usable with sharpening.
From an engineering perspective the NAP blade retention mechanism is ingenious and works extremely well, the T3 spider clips have come in for some criticism, partly justified, they are fiddly to set properly but work well.
Shooting both broadheads out of the same bow (Bowtech Guardian 72#), using the same arrows, the T3 definitely groups better, with the NAPs showing approximately 4" grouping at 20 yards, still not bad, but they do seem to plane more, probably due to the longer head.
One big issue however is the noticeable noise produced by the T3s, the NAP is probably the most silent BH I have shot, with no discernible sound, while the T3 makes a very noticeable whirring sound, subjectively responsible for the string jump of the second Impala ram I shot and hence the slightly higher than aimed impact.
Bottom line is that I would recommend either, but purely based on mechanism and sound the NAP will remain in my bow with the T3 as backup.
PS. I do not shoot front deploying BHs due to the risk of deflection and amount of blade movement required to expose a cutting surface.
Bowtech Guardian 28.5DL 70#
TruGlo 5 Pin
NAP Nitron 125grn