Moe,
sorry for the delay in my reply. It has been quite late overhere, now it's 5 o'clock in the morning. I guess, you've found my website in the meantime.
Rick, you're right. If you're happy with your heads, keep on use 'em. When I was talking about tooling I just wanted to explain why they are cheap. And yes, they outperform a lot of the other (modern) stuff but only if the bowhunter is willing and capable of paying much attention to some factors. One important factor is sharpness. I bet 80% of all "broadhead-users" are not able to create e real razors edge. The advantage of the very sharpness on steel with no or less amount of chrome is not worth mentioning if both steels are sharpened in professional way. BTW a few powdermetallurgic steels are outperforming the rest here but the material costs about ten times more.
I'm just making my own broadheads because I was not happy with the BH's on the market today. I don't like the glue-on stuff for several reasons and I don't like most of the modern screw-ins because their manufacturers stopped thinking about toughness and geometry at deersized game.
It's real funny that so many people find my heads looking like the old DeadHead. Now I'm a broadhead collector, too since about one year and I got a DeadHead in my small collection but I didn't even know all the "old-fashioned" heads when I started designing my head.
From what I know of ol' doc's testings the DeadHead performed very well in the Natal study. So this should be the right way.
Talking about fieldtesting, only a few number of game has been shot with my BH's so because they are quite new on the market but at all the times they worked flawlessly on African and North American game.
I have sent some heads to Ed Ashby in Australia and I'm curious how they will perform in his new study.
Sorry for the long post, guys. It's not easy saying all the things in the way I want it to say.
Good hunting
Markus