You posted a reply recently on Tradbow in response to a query titled “Why 25 1/2 degree angle of cut?”, that I started. I have a personal questions of follow up for you, not related to the thread, so contacting you here. Ashby as was posted, confirmed 25 1/2 degrees to be ideal.
I use the KME as expressed, and I understand your explanation that the KME jig may read different than the actual factory grind. It remains unclear to me if the TuffHead can be sharpened to a true 25 1/2 degrees or not, without grinding the ferrule, if I use the KME on a Tuffhead BH. I will be in the market(know of 3 others also) for new BH, and all are looking to follow Ashby’s recommendations. Your head is well done and on a short list of possibilities.
One of the other posters to this thread at Tradbow said it is not possible to sharpen without grinding the ferrule, but I am not certain if that poster understood the KME jig may have been cutting a true 25 even-though the jig stated otherwise [due to the relationship of the blade being closer to the jig pivot point, as you attempted to clarify]. The dims of the 225 and 300 appear to be the same, but my selection would be with regards to either of these 2 heads. If they would require a grind to the ferrule at 25 1/2 degrees, do you know at what true blade angle the ferrule would not have to be ground? I also would hate to not consider your head because of the KME. How much can your ferrule be ground if needed, and not compromise your head? Are there other sharpeners you personally prefer? I have talked to Ron Swartz in person and believe him to be of good character, and a maker of a good product, but this does not wed me to his product. The BH is more important than the sharpener in my opinion.
Of the BH’s on my short list, only 2 others have a smooth ferrule taper(Grizzly and Aboyer). The Grizzly taper starts just a bit further back from the tip than yours and the Aboyer noticeably more so. Though both have a smooth taper, the further back it starts increases the angle assuming equal end diameter which increases resistance. Did your testing show a marked improvement in penetration by placing the ferrule to the tip as you did, or was this done upon theory alone? Was this effective only for wood arrows, or also if inserts are used to accommodate a screw in ferrule and using carbon?
Further, because of the convenience of removing a ‘rotating’ single bevel from a target when it has threads, I would install your head with inserts on an anticipated use of an Easton FMJ arrow(BH almost always out back of target and easier to remove than yanking back through). Are the inserts engineered with the same attention to detail the BH was given?: I am assuming this will make my BH alignment much easier which is my concern. I am a stickler for a well tuned system and uncertain of the degree of effort this will be using your product. I know it is possible. A well engineered system makes it hard to not get the alignment right.
Last, have you ever considered a BH design for narrow carbon shafts that would have a narrower ferrule dia. and an aligned/installed insert, that a small diameter arrow such as a FMJ from Easton would still easily clear. 3/8 is quite a bit(IT IS ALL RELATIVE ), of unnecessary extra bone to push a wider ferrule through, assuming a narrow dia. shaft is chosen. I understand Ashby’s study suggests bigger BH than shaft is much better than the arrow than equal in size. Plus a narrower ferrule would allow more clearance for a jig like the KME. Just a thought.
Thank you for your reply in advance. No rush on the reply should you be hunting. Also, thank you for making available the well designed BH you have.