Design vs. aerodynamics (forces) dictate that a " fixed-wing broadhead" shall not be expected to, without fail, behave the same as a " streamlined field point" does,

-regardless what the manufacturer hype claims;
-regardless how much you believe they should and want them to; and
- no matter that sometimes some shooters do get their fixed-wing broadheads to fly and impact as and where their field point mounted arrows do.

If " fixed-wing broadheads" are supposed to fly and impact the same as a field point, and if they don' t it is the fault of the shooter and the setup…not the broadhead; for what PRIMARY PURPOSE was the " mechanical broadhead" designed, and what does the fundamental design of the mechanical broadhead imitate?

WHY is it necessary ….an absolute expectation with some shooters… that your " fixed-wing broadheads" fly the same as a field point mounted shaft, and impact the same as a field point mounted shaft? Do you hunt large game with your fixed-wing broadheads AND your field points?

If you demand and expect both the fixed-wing broadhead and the field point to fly and impact identically, but the broadhead is the primary head for hunting large game, why must the fixed-wing broadhead be expected (required) to fly and impact as the field point does? Why not the opposite? When tuning for hunting purposes, should not the performance of the " fixed-wing broadhead" be the primary consideration?

If you are going to bowhunt, tune and setup for bowhunting. Not for range-shooting, only.

In most cases where a shooter has struggled to tweak the broadhead to fly and impact as his or her field points do, in all probability their broadhead mounted shafts are riding a very thin line between good flight and accuracy, and poor flight and a miss.