I'm not so sure it works that way. A fair number of people online talk about it, but relatively few of the total bowhunters seem to know anything at all about it. Just look at how little involvement the technical forum gets compared to the "bowhunting stories" forum, and one gets a feel for the lack of interest in this type of thing. Certainly, less than 1% of bowhunters have ever read Ashby's studies involving FOC and only a portion of those believe what he has concluded.

Is it a big deal? Well, I doubt a 1-2% increase in FOC will make much of a difference, unless it just happens to get your arrow out of a super unstable range. However, when you get into the extreme increase range, then the difference is profound in my opinion. Still, how many people have even experimented with 250 grains on the tip? I'm including bow shop owners in this. I'll bet 90% of those haven't even tried it, much less studied the available data on it.

You also have to know how to arrive at proper spine when using heaving weight on the front. You can't just add the weight to an arrow and expect it to work. Most don't know this. They go to a chart, read the variables and choose the recommended head. They don't even know how inaccurate those charts can be, and the charts typically don't go past 125 grains. Heck, none of the charts even take into account the difference between draw length and arrow length when determing spine.

In my opinion, the bowhunting public has a long way to go before a majority understand what proper arrow design consists of. Bowhunters tend to be wrapped up in annecdotal evidence - 'light-weight, low FOC worked for me, so why change?' The bow industry will have to make a change towards promoting stable arrow flight, vs 'this is the fastest bow on the planet'. I don't see this happening anytime soon. At this time, the industry seems to be predicated on what bow manufacturers do - and they promote faster bows than the 'other guy' has.