OK, I am very tight, but I have saved up and I have another 2 cents on this topic, which is still generating interest. First, in response to the other thread where it was said I took it personally. You're dang right I took it personally. Anybody who doesn't take a lost animal personally doesn't need to be in the broadhead business, and the day I don't I will get out. If my heads prove to be responsible I will take responsibility and take action. But I won't have a knee jerk reaction to one instance. One thing I like about John and Michelle Muz is they take it personally also. I was killing some time and cruising the web in the last couple weeks or so, and there was some guy posting that he had shot a couple deer broadside with Muzzies and he didn't penetrate, so he switched heads because Muzzy wouldn't penetrate. I figure either the guy had bad arrow flight, or the animal moved, or he was just one really unlucky dude, or all of the above. Other rational posts agreed. I doubt Muz jumped off a cliff about it. One thing that will never change is if somebody loses an animal, they blame something. I understand, I do it too. Nobody wants to think they are responsible for losing an animal. And sometimes, like if an animal moves just right, there is nothing to blame, stuff happens. Thats why its fair chase and we don't use poison arrows. One study reports 80% of wounded animals with a bow recover. Thats good news. And like somebody said, the scavengers that feed on a carcass have to eat too. Speaking of Muzzy, I remember when I first saw their very first ads in Western Bowhunter in 84 or 85 I suppose. They were really weird looking at the time with the large snout. People looked at them and said you could see that with a tip that large they wouldn't penetrate. And I suppose somebody tried some and had a fluke hit. I remember Muz saying at the shows he would have to trip people to try to slow them down at his booth. It seems they didn't start selling much until the 90s, he must have tripped enough people to get enough using them so the penetration myth was stopped. The point is what people perceive as logical is not always so. Reminds me of the test I still see people refer to when comparing a "cut on contact" head with a tip like mine. The reason I put cut on contact like that is when I push my head through paper I see the tip make a neat "X". Seems like it is cutting to me. With four edges it cuts an X whereas a 2 edge tip cuts a - . Anyway, the test I refer to is where a traditional 2 blade is pushed through a hide and the force is measured, and then a chisel tip is pushed through and the force is measured. The 2 blade wins and it takes a lot of force to get the chisel tip through. Problem is it is a static test instead of dynamic, and that makes a big difference. The next time you hear somebody mention that test, ask them if they will put a hide on and let you shoot at them with the chisel tip with less force than was required to push it through the hide. If somebody ever takes you up on that, call me, I want to watch. But back to the subject at hand. As far as 5shots test, it is true that the test medium wasn't an animal. Unless everybody chips in for a test herd of goats I doubt that will change. One way to look at it, Quincy, is there are 3 possibilities of the tests validity. The test is easier than a live animal, the same as a live animal, or harder than a live animal. All there is, is speculation both ways. Call me biased, but at first glance it seems like a reasonable try 5shot. I would be curious how a Rocky TI would test, which is a bit similar to mine, and how a Steelhead 100 would fare, with the blade tips. Frankly I think if deflection was very easy on an animal you would hear of a good number of reports with those heads. The reason I mentioned the email on the other thread was, while we are theorizing, to raise the possibility of bad arrow flight at short range. I believe, however, that Shane said he had fixed it. I can tell you I was so amazed when he emailed me that info that I quizzed him then and later I sent another email wondering about it and he said it was the same and his bow was tuned. So you can understand when the only guy who has ever had arrow flight like that comes up as the only guy that had mentioned deflection. Shane, I hope you are not one of those "really unlucky dudes". But I still don't see evidence of more than one deer where an arrow looked like it MIGHT have deflected, and if the animal turned it just went where it was pointed. The first doe, for instance, in the email sounded like a perfectly performing broadhead. Read the email again. If I remember correctly, on a quartering shot, the arrow nicked the ham and came out behind the front shoulder. How does an arrow deflect on a quartering shot and come out exactly where it should?? I think there may also be a reference to a severe or extreme angle or something. At any rate, what was later posted about the first doe was different, after, as Shane put it, he got to thinking. Reminds me of shooting pool, think long and think wrong. LOL Memories of a misspent youth. Just kidding, pool is a great teacher of physics. Anyway, I still don't see on the last deer evidence of deflection. Anybody who has seen the results of my head will tell you there is plenty of evidence of where they go, even if they were deflecting. An outfitter in Colorado called me yesterday to say some hunters from Vegas took a couple of big mule deer and he had never seen such holes. He wanted to know about them and gave me the number of a big shop by him so they could get some. Thats mostly how I sold heads this year, word of mouth. The guys in Vegas got their heads from a shop that learned about them from some Jersey guys, who I suspect were there gambling and stopped in. My heads are also doing great everywhere, including Canada, where distributors tried them this year and are itching to get them next year. And I just spoke to Center Sports in Columbia Ct, who sold hundreds of packs this year. I asked him about reports and deflection. He said no deflection problem reported, just field point flight and dead animals with big holes in them. Thats been the standard response. So will I change my heads? Maybe. But I have had people tell me in a threatening manner not to change a thing. If I do change them I hope they were kidding, but they seemed rather serious. But the good thing is my design is the best because my blade locking system allows me to make a head as long or short, skinny or fat or whatever shape I want, and my blades as thick as I please. Other designs have inherent limits. If I want I can easily put a gooseneck on my head, and I might, not saying I will, but I might even if there is absolutely no deflection problem. If people fancy the looks for whatever imagined reason. Kind of like a woman with a nightie, nothing is really different but it seems better. Well, I think I ended up giving you all a nickels worth, hope you don't get eyestrain, and have a nice Thanksgiving, the Owl.