Considering that the paper-tear when using the QT800 is not yet as good as should be tends to show that there is a tune aspect that still needs to be corrected. I suspect a spine issue, but could be rest alignment, nock height, torque, etc. The paper-tear result when using the "WB" indicates that the arrow flight was so bad, it appears the arrow was trying to swap ends while in flight. There may have been some extreme contact between the arrow and the "WB" rest, or an extensive and uneven force was brought to bear on the shafts by the rest.

Although the paper is still not as good as it should be, just changing to a rest of different design appears to have drastically corrected the arrow's flight. Such extensive corrective result by just changing the rest design indicates that a "containment" rest may extremely compound a flight problem if the exit of the arrow from the bow is not clean.

The tear made by the QT800 indicates, that although arrow penetration would have been affected you may have still hit the kill-zone on a deer. As for the indicated flight of the arrow when shot off the "WB," especially if mounted with a "winged" broadhead, the results most likely would have been a complete miss or a badly wounded animal that may not have died, or died days later and not recovered.

Regardless of how well-tuned a "containment" rest may be, if the rest was to become slightly detuned or obstructed while in the field, or should a not-so-good release be made, is such erratic flight to be the result.

Regardless of what caused the violent flight problem, I see something that I had not previously considered. I see a potentiality of a dangerous situation. With such erratic flight, the shaft could possibly plane off course and completely miss the target. This problem would be severely compounded if the shaft was mounted with a broadhead. Therefore, I would not practice with a "containment" rest in or near a populated area and/or where there are people nearby and not behind me.