Blade users thread (NO DEBATING CLUBHEADS! NO Buy Sell Trade!)

[BogeyParBogey]

> @revanant said:

 

> It actually was the same shaft. The stock 620 MBs are shafted in Project X 6.0, same as my MP-4s.

 

Rev,

Isn't the PX 6.0 way too much shaft? I'm in a similar range distance wise and much prefer regular flex.

Dave

[PReardon]

Played today at the course I've been a caddy at for 4 years and was playing in a high school match. I ended up shooting 7 over which wasn’t to bad considering a wedge shot from 50 yards bounced like a tennis ball on concrete. But on the very first hole I hit a perfect tee shot and ended up in a divot at 180 yards out and wind in my face so it’d play around 195-205 but I pulled out a 6 iron and stuck it to 4 feet

[Tree Levino]

> @BogeyParBogey said:

> > @revanant said:

>

> > It actually was the same shaft. The stock 620 MBs are shafted in Project X 6.0, same as my MP-4s.

>

> Rev,

> Isn't the PX 6.0 way too much shaft? I'm in a similar range distance wise and much prefer regular flex.

> Dave

 

Project X has actually been shown to spin excessively at times when playing too stiff of a flex in it. My stock 8 iron is 165 carry and I find the PX 6.0 (I have a normal set in addition to my LZ) to be plenty. So yeah, it's probably too much shaft for him but he likes his clubs.

[revanant]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @BogeyParBogey said:

> > > @revanant said:

> >

> > > It actually was the same shaft. The stock 620 MBs are shafted in Project X 6.0, same as my MP-4s.

> >

> > Rev,

> > Isn't the PX 6.0 way too much shaft? I'm in a similar range distance wise and much prefer regular flex.

> > Dave

>

> Project X has actually been shown to spin excessively at times when playing too stiff of a flex in it. My stock 8 iron is 165 carry and I find the PX 6.0 (I have a normal set in addition to my LZ) to be plenty. So yeah, it's probably too much shaft for him but he likes his clubs.

 

For what it’s worth, I didn’t seek out the Project X 6.0 for the 620 MB. It’s how they come as stock. Golf shop had a demo 7 iron, but no fitting heads.

 

As it happens, I’ve gotten familiar with the shaft and very comfortable with it. I like the weight of the 120 gram shaft. As for flex, I just find it fairly smooth and not distracting.

 

I really love the Apex shafts I have in my Hogan Redlines—I think they compare to dynalite gold, which is that same 120 gram weight, but a lot higher launching in my hands. Sadly, those things are basically out of production, though I’ve heard the new Elevate Tour shaft from TT is pretty similar.

 

I do think I’m going to reshaft when I do my next grip change on my Mp-4s, though. I’m between going Modus 120 in Regular, or Modus 105 in stiff at the moment. I haven’t demoed Modus 120 in stiff, yet, but that’s next up.

 

So long story short, the Project X seem to work well in my hands and they don’t bother me, but I may change things up soon just to tinker a bit.

[Nard_S]

> @revanant said:

> > @balls_deep said:

> > > @BogeyParBogey said:

> > > > @revanant said:

> > >

> > > > It actually was the same shaft. The stock 620 MBs are shafted in Project X 6.0, same as my MP-4s.

> > >

> > > Rev,

> > > Isn't the PX 6.0 way too much shaft? I'm in a similar range distance wise and much prefer regular flex.

> > > Dave

> >

> > Project X has actually been shown to spin excessively at times when playing too stiff of a flex in it. My stock 8 iron is 165 carry and I find the PX 6.0 (I have a normal set in addition to my LZ) to be plenty. So yeah, it's probably too much shaft for him but he likes his clubs.

>

> For what it’s worth, I didn’t seek out the Project X 6.0 for the 620 MB. It’s how they come as stock. Golf shop had a demo 7 iron, but no fitting heads.

>

> As it happens, I’ve gotten familiar with the shaft and very comfortable with it. I like the weight of the 120 gram shaft. As for flex, I just find it fairly smooth and not distracting.

>

> I really love the Apex shafts I have in my Hogan Redlines—I think they compare to dynalite gold, which is that same 120 gram weight, but a lot higher launching in my hands. Sadly, those things are basically out of production, though I’ve heard the new Elevate Tour shaft from TT is pretty similar.

>

> I do think I’m going to reshaft when I do my next grip change on my Mp-4s, though. I’m between going Modus 120 in Regular, or Modus 105 in stiff at the moment. I haven’t demoed Modus 120 in stiff, yet, but that’s next up.

>

> So long story short, the Project X seem to work well in my hands and they don’t bother me, but I may change things up soon just to tinker a bit.

 

Project X is basically a Rifle shaft with a DG bend (high kick) profile. If you like Apex shafts, old Brunswick's FM Precisions or Rifles fit that build. I avoided DG for long time due to spinny issues and used both. Another option is DG in tapered tip but soft stepped 1X. KBS founder designed the Brunswick's, so you might do well with those too. The #1 issue with MB's and fit is inherently higher spin so shaft choice is critical. Bend point to swing affects launch which can balance out spin issues in the positive or negative. Imo, classic DG profile is one of the hardest design intents to swing to. Hogan was ahead of his time with the custom profile (softer tipped ) that Apex shafts had then. They may have used Dynalite or FM's, but stepping was to their own specs.

 

[Tree Levino]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @revanant said:

> > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > @BogeyParBogey said:

> > > > > @revanant said:

> > > >

> > > > > It actually was the same shaft. The stock 620 MBs are shafted in Project X 6.0, same as my MP-4s.

> > > >

> > > > Rev,

> > > > Isn't the PX 6.0 way too much shaft? I'm in a similar range distance wise and much prefer regular flex.

> > > > Dave

> > >

> > > Project X has actually been shown to spin excessively at times when playing too stiff of a flex in it. My stock 8 iron is 165 carry and I find the PX 6.0 (I have a normal set in addition to my LZ) to be plenty. So yeah, it's probably too much shaft for him but he likes his clubs.

> >

> > For what it’s worth, I didn’t seek out the Project X 6.0 for the 620 MB. It’s how they come as stock. Golf shop had a demo 7 iron, but no fitting heads.

> >

> > As it happens, I’ve gotten familiar with the shaft and very comfortable with it. I like the weight of the 120 gram shaft. As for flex, I just find it fairly smooth and not distracting.

> >

> > I really love the Apex shafts I have in my Hogan Redlines—I think they compare to dynalite gold, which is that same 120 gram weight, but a lot higher launching in my hands. Sadly, those things are basically out of production, though I’ve heard the new Elevate Tour shaft from TT is pretty similar.

> >

> > I do think I’m going to reshaft when I do my next grip change on my Mp-4s, though. I’m between going Modus 120 in Regular, or Modus 105 in stiff at the moment. I haven’t demoed Modus 120 in stiff, yet, but that’s next up.

> >

> > So long story short, the Project X seem to work well in my hands and they don’t bother me, but I may change things up soon just to tinker a bit.

>

> Project X is basically a Rifle shaft with a DG bend (high kick) profile. If you like Apex shafts, old Brunswick's FM Precisions or Rifles fit that build. I avoided DG for long time due to spinny issues and used both. Another option is DG in tapered tip but soft stepped 1X. KBS founder designed the Brunswick's, so you might do well with those too. The #1 issue with MB's and fit is inherently higher spin so shaft choice is critical. Bend point to swing affects launch which can balance out spin issues in the positive or negative. Imo, classic DG profile is one of the hardest design intents to swing to. Hogan was ahead of his time with the custom profile (softer tipped ) that Apex shafts had then. They may have used Dynalite or FM's, but stepping was to their own specs.

>

 

I think for anybody that doesn’t mind the weight, DG is one of the most versatile shafts for a variety of swings - there’s a reason it has been the universal stock shaft for so long. It just works. I’d argue PX suits a way smaller portion of golfers. Contrary to what many believe about their own swing, most amateurs struggle with spin levels that are too low rather than too high. I love PX but it certainly does not fit a lot of golfers.

[Nard_S]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @revanant said:

> > > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > > @BogeyParBogey said:

> > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > >

> > > > > > It actually was the same shaft. The stock 620 MBs are shafted in Project X 6.0, same as my MP-4s.

> > > > >

> > > > > Rev,

> > > > > Isn't the PX 6.0 way too much shaft? I'm in a similar range distance wise and much prefer regular flex.

> > > > > Dave

> > > >

> > > > Project X has actually been shown to spin excessively at times when playing too stiff of a flex in it. My stock 8 iron is 165 carry and I find the PX 6.0 (I have a normal set in addition to my LZ) to be plenty. So yeah, it's probably too much shaft for him but he likes his clubs.

> > >

> > > For what it’s worth, I didn’t seek out the Project X 6.0 for the 620 MB. It’s how they come as stock. Golf shop had a demo 7 iron, but no fitting heads.

> > >

> > > As it happens, I’ve gotten familiar with the shaft and very comfortable with it. I like the weight of the 120 gram shaft. As for flex, I just find it fairly smooth and not distracting.

> > >

> > > I really love the Apex shafts I have in my Hogan Redlines—I think they compare to dynalite gold, which is that same 120 gram weight, but a lot higher launching in my hands. Sadly, those things are basically out of production, though I’ve heard the new Elevate Tour shaft from TT is pretty similar.

> > >

> > > I do think I’m going to reshaft when I do my next grip change on my Mp-4s, though. I’m between going Modus 120 in Regular, or Modus 105 in stiff at the moment. I haven’t demoed Modus 120 in stiff, yet, but that’s next up.

> > >

> > > So long story short, the Project X seem to work well in my hands and they don’t bother me, but I may change things up soon just to tinker a bit.

> >

> > Project X is basically a Rifle shaft with a DG bend (high kick) profile. If you like Apex shafts, old Brunswick's FM Precisions or Rifles fit that build. I avoided DG for long time due to spinny issues and used both. Another option is DG in tapered tip but soft stepped 1X. KBS founder designed the Brunswick's, so you might do well with those too. The #1 issue with MB's and fit is inherently higher spin so shaft choice is critical. Bend point to swing affects launch which can balance out spin issues in the positive or negative. Imo, classic DG profile is one of the hardest design intents to swing to. Hogan was ahead of his time with the custom profile (softer tipped ) that Apex shafts had then. They may have used Dynalite or FM's, but stepping was to their own specs.

> >

>

> I think for anybody that doesn’t mind the weight, DG is one of the most versatile shafts for a variety of swings - there’s a reason it has been the universal stock shaft for so long. It just works. I’d argue PX suits a way smaller portion of golfers. Contrary to what many believe about their own swing, most amateurs struggle with spin levels that are too low rather than too high. I love PX but it certainly does not fit a lot of golfers.

 

There's a boat load of variants, sub-classes on DG, hence the versatility, and they have massaged things over the years too. Classic, constant weighted DG is the gold standard of profiles (see high tour acceptance to this day) but high kick, stiff tipped profiles are not the easiest for duffers to master. It's part of the reason they keep tweaking up variants. Design intent is low launch, high spin with late peak & high apex. Very few ams actually swing to all three. I can count on one hand how many rec players I've seen actually do that to full control. Pro's have flatter, wider, descending AOA while the proper de-loft of face is happening. Classic DG is designed to that and rewards it better than most all.

 

Ams who do not have enough spin have basic swing issues. A stiffed tipped/soft butt shaft can add spin and initial launch but it is a mis match solution that can lead to ingraining really poor mechanics. If it's the weighting that's the appeals, there's a bunch of 120-130 gram options with less demanding profiles around.

[Christen_The_Sloop]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @balls_deep said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > > > @BogeyParBogey said:

> > > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > It actually was the same shaft. The stock 620 MBs are shafted in Project X 6.0, same as my MP-4s.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Rev,

> > > > > > Isn't the PX 6.0 way too much shaft? I'm in a similar range distance wise and much prefer regular flex.

> > > > > > Dave

> > > > >

> > > > > Project X has actually been shown to spin excessively at times when playing too stiff of a flex in it. My stock 8 iron is 165 carry and I find the PX 6.0 (I have a normal set in addition to my LZ) to be plenty. So yeah, it's probably too much shaft for him but he likes his clubs.

> > > >

> > > > For what it’s worth, I didn’t seek out the Project X 6.0 for the 620 MB. It’s how they come as stock. Golf shop had a demo 7 iron, but no fitting heads.

> > > >

> > > > As it happens, I’ve gotten familiar with the shaft and very comfortable with it. I like the weight of the 120 gram shaft. As for flex, I just find it fairly smooth and not distracting.

> > > >

> > > > I really love the Apex shafts I have in my Hogan Redlines—I think they compare to dynalite gold, which is that same 120 gram weight, but a lot higher launching in my hands. Sadly, those things are basically out of production, though I’ve heard the new Elevate Tour shaft from TT is pretty similar.

> > > >

> > > > I do think I’m going to reshaft when I do my next grip change on my Mp-4s, though. I’m between going Modus 120 in Regular, or Modus 105 in stiff at the moment. I haven’t demoed Modus 120 in stiff, yet, but that’s next up.

> > > >

> > > > So long story short, the Project X seem to work well in my hands and they don’t bother me, but I may change things up soon just to tinker a bit.

> > >

> > > Project X is basically a Rifle shaft with a DG bend (high kick) profile. If you like Apex shafts, old Brunswick's FM Precisions or Rifles fit that build. I avoided DG for long time due to spinny issues and used both. Another option is DG in tapered tip but soft stepped 1X. KBS founder designed the Brunswick's, so you might do well with those too. The #1 issue with MB's and fit is inherently higher spin so shaft choice is critical. Bend point to swing affects launch which can balance out spin issues in the positive or negative. Imo, classic DG profile is one of the hardest design intents to swing to. Hogan was ahead of his time with the custom profile (softer tipped ) that Apex shafts had then. They may have used Dynalite or FM's, but stepping was to their own specs.

> > >

> >

> > I think for anybody that doesn’t mind the weight, DG is one of the most versatile shafts for a variety of swings - there’s a reason it has been the universal stock shaft for so long. It just works. I’d argue PX suits a way smaller portion of golfers. Contrary to what many believe about their own swing, most amateurs struggle with spin levels that are too low rather than too high. I love PX but it certainly does not fit a lot of golfers.

>

> There's a boat load of variants, sub-classes on DG, hence the versatility, and they have massaged things over the years too. Classic, constant weighted DG is the gold standard of profiles (see high tour acceptance to this day) but high kick, stiff tipped profiles are not the easiest for duffers to master. It's part of the reason they keep tweaking up variants. Design intent is low launch, high spin with late peak & high apex. Very few ams actually swing to all three. I can count on one hand how many rec players I've seen actually do that to full control. Pro's have flatter, wider, descending AOA while the proper de-loft of face is happening. Classic DG is designed to that and rewards it better than most all.

>

> Ams who do not have enough spin have basic swing issues. A stiffed tipped/soft butt shaft can add spin and initial launch but it is a mis match solution that can lead to ingraining really poor mechanics. If it's the weighting that's the appeals, there's a bunch of 120-130 gram options with less demanding profiles around.

 

So, that's why I like my classic DG. When you put it like that, they just sound so right.

 

 

[Tree Levino]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @balls_deep said:

> > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > > > @BogeyParBogey said:

> > > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > It actually was the same shaft. The stock 620 MBs are shafted in Project X 6.0, same as my MP-4s.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Rev,

> > > > > > Isn't the PX 6.0 way too much shaft? I'm in a similar range distance wise and much prefer regular flex.

> > > > > > Dave

> > > > >

> > > > > Project X has actually been shown to spin excessively at times when playing too stiff of a flex in it. My stock 8 iron is 165 carry and I find the PX 6.0 (I have a normal set in addition to my LZ) to be plenty. So yeah, it's probably too much shaft for him but he likes his clubs.

> > > >

> > > > For what it’s worth, I didn’t seek out the Project X 6.0 for the 620 MB. It’s how they come as stock. Golf shop had a demo 7 iron, but no fitting heads.

> > > >

> > > > As it happens, I’ve gotten familiar with the shaft and very comfortable with it. I like the weight of the 120 gram shaft. As for flex, I just find it fairly smooth and not distracting.

> > > >

> > > > I really love the Apex shafts I have in my Hogan Redlines—I think they compare to dynalite gold, which is that same 120 gram weight, but a lot higher launching in my hands. Sadly, those things are basically out of production, though I’ve heard the new Elevate Tour shaft from TT is pretty similar.

> > > >

> > > > I do think I’m going to reshaft when I do my next grip change on my Mp-4s, though. I’m between going Modus 120 in Regular, or Modus 105 in stiff at the moment. I haven’t demoed Modus 120 in stiff, yet, but that’s next up.

> > > >

> > > > So long story short, the Project X seem to work well in my hands and they don’t bother me, but I may change things up soon just to tinker a bit.

> > >

> > > Project X is basically a Rifle shaft with a DG bend (high kick) profile. If you like Apex shafts, old Brunswick's FM Precisions or Rifles fit that build. I avoided DG for long time due to spinny issues and used both. Another option is DG in tapered tip but soft stepped 1X. KBS founder designed the Brunswick's, so you might do well with those too. The #1 issue with MB's and fit is inherently higher spin so shaft choice is critical. Bend point to swing affects launch which can balance out spin issues in the positive or negative. Imo, classic DG profile is one of the hardest design intents to swing to. Hogan was ahead of his time with the custom profile (softer tipped ) that Apex shafts had then. They may have used Dynalite or FM's, but stepping was to their own specs.

> > >

> >

> > I think for anybody that doesn’t mind the weight, DG is one of the most versatile shafts for a variety of swings - there’s a reason it has been the universal stock shaft for so long. It just works. I’d argue PX suits a way smaller portion of golfers. Contrary to what many believe about their own swing, most amateurs struggle with spin levels that are too low rather than too high. I love PX but it certainly does not fit a lot of golfers.

>

> There's a boat load of variants, sub-classes on DG, hence the versatility, and they have massaged things over the years too. Classic, constant weighted DG is the gold standard of profiles (see high tour acceptance to this day) but high kick, stiff tipped profiles are not the easiest for duffers to master. It's part of the reason they keep tweaking up variants. Design intent is low launch, high spin with late peak & high apex. Very few ams actually swing to all three. I can count on one hand how many rec players I've seen actually do that to full control. Pro's have flatter, wider, descending AOA while the proper de-loft of face is happening. Classic DG is designed to that and rewards it better than most all.

>

> Ams who do not have enough spin have basic swing issues. A stiffed tipped/soft butt shaft can add spin and initial launch but it is a mis match solution that can lead to ingraining really poor mechanics. If it's the weighting that's the appeals, there's a bunch of 120-130 gram options with less demanding profiles around.

 

I really don't see how classic DG is a "demanding profile". I'd argue PX is much more so.

[BogeyParBogey]

> @revanant said:

> For what it’s worth, I didn’t seek out the Project X 6.0 for the 620 MB. It’s how they come as stock. Golf shop had a demo 7 iron, but no fitting heads.

>

> As it happens, I’ve gotten familiar with the shaft and very comfortable with it. I like the weight of the 120 gram shaft. As for flex, I just find it fairly smooth and not distracting.

>

> I really love the Apex shafts I have in my Hogan Redlines—I think they compare to dynalite gold, which is that same 120 gram weight, but a lot higher launching in my hands. Sadly, those things are basically out of production, though I’ve heard the new Elevate Tour shaft from TT is pretty similar.

>

> I do think I’m going to reshaft when I do my next grip change on my Mp-4s, though. I’m between going Modus 120 in Regular, or Modus 105 in stiff at the moment. I haven’t demoed Modus 120 in stiff, yet, but that’s next up.

>

> So long story short, the Project X seem to work well in my hands and they don’t bother me, but I may change things up soon just to tinker a bit.

 

You may want to consider trying True Temper AMT White R300 if you like the 120-gram range, but want to try something softer. I have the sister shaft to this the Dynamic Gold AMT R300 in a set of AP2s, but find it a bit heavy. I like XP 105 R300 a lot better.

 

Dynalite Gold XP are still available at Rock Bottom for $41/set in taper.

 

Dave

[Nard_S]

> @Christen_The_Sloop said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > > > > @BogeyParBogey said:

> > > > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It actually was the same shaft. The stock 620 MBs are shafted in Project X 6.0, same as my MP-4s.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Rev,

> > > > > > > Isn't the PX 6.0 way too much shaft? I'm in a similar range distance wise and much prefer regular flex.

> > > > > > > Dave

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Project X has actually been shown to spin excessively at times when playing too stiff of a flex in it. My stock 8 iron is 165 carry and I find the PX 6.0 (I have a normal set in addition to my LZ) to be plenty. So yeah, it's probably too much shaft for him but he likes his clubs.

> > > > >

> > > > > For what it’s worth, I didn’t seek out the Project X 6.0 for the 620 MB. It’s how they come as stock. Golf shop had a demo 7 iron, but no fitting heads.

> > > > >

> > > > > As it happens, I’ve gotten familiar with the shaft and very comfortable with it. I like the weight of the 120 gram shaft. As for flex, I just find it fairly smooth and not distracting.

> > > > >

> > > > > I really love the Apex shafts I have in my Hogan Redlines—I think they compare to dynalite gold, which is that same 120 gram weight, but a lot higher launching in my hands. Sadly, those things are basically out of production, though I’ve heard the new Elevate Tour shaft from TT is pretty similar.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do think I’m going to reshaft when I do my next grip change on my Mp-4s, though. I’m between going Modus 120 in Regular, or Modus 105 in stiff at the moment. I haven’t demoed Modus 120 in stiff, yet, but that’s next up.

> > > > >

> > > > > So long story short, the Project X seem to work well in my hands and they don’t bother me, but I may change things up soon just to tinker a bit.

> > > >

> > > > Project X is basically a Rifle shaft with a DG bend (high kick) profile. If you like Apex shafts, old Brunswick's FM Precisions or Rifles fit that build. I avoided DG for long time due to spinny issues and used both. Another option is DG in tapered tip but soft stepped 1X. KBS founder designed the Brunswick's, so you might do well with those too. The #1 issue with MB's and fit is inherently higher spin so shaft choice is critical. Bend point to swing affects launch which can balance out spin issues in the positive or negative. Imo, classic DG profile is one of the hardest design intents to swing to. Hogan was ahead of his time with the custom profile (softer tipped ) that Apex shafts had then. They may have used Dynalite or FM's, but stepping was to their own specs.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I think for anybody that doesn’t mind the weight, DG is one of the most versatile shafts for a variety of swings - there’s a reason it has been the universal stock shaft for so long. It just works. I’d argue PX suits a way smaller portion of golfers. Contrary to what many believe about their own swing, most amateurs struggle with spin levels that are too low rather than too high. I love PX but it certainly does not fit a lot of golfers.

> >

> > There's a boat load of variants, sub-classes on DG, hence the versatility, and they have massaged things over the years too. Classic, constant weighted DG is the gold standard of profiles (see high tour acceptance to this day) but high kick, stiff tipped profiles are not the easiest for duffers to master. It's part of the reason they keep tweaking up variants. Design intent is low launch, high spin with late peak & high apex. Very few ams actually swing to all three. I can count on one hand how many rec players I've seen actually do that to full control. Pro's have flatter, wider, descending AOA while the proper de-loft of face is happening. Classic DG is designed to that and rewards it better than most all.

> >

> > Ams who do not have enough spin have basic swing issues. A stiffed tipped/soft butt shaft can add spin and initial launch but it is a mis match solution that can lead to ingraining really poor mechanics. If it's the weighting that's the appeals, there's a bunch of 120-130 gram options with less demanding profiles around.

>

> So, that's why I like my classic DG..........

>

>

 

Right? I have had at least 12 sets of DG fitted blades, may have at least 6 now. Only two of them I classify OMG great.

[Christen_The_Sloop]

I've played with mainly DG S300 my whole golfing life and if I could still play them without any adjustment. (have them in a set of Taylormade X-300 FCI and whenever I think of selling that set I quickly think of something else - I've never hit a pitchwedge so square than in that set) I started using X100 (in my current set) after using S200 (Japan). They were bit of a mental hurdle (I played college golf for a few years with equipment that didn't match my swing at all due largely to ignorance), but now it's nothing. I should have been using them all along. They are as smooth as anything out there and just so consistent. I love how smooth Modus 120s are, but I really have to be careful to swing within myself. But, sometimes you have to let it out and with the X it'll take all I can give it. 120x might be the ticket, but why even bother, I hit the DGs so well.

 

I've had a really great time lately with my new driver, speaking of clubs that seem to fit. I had a Tour AD MJ 6X. and I hit a lot of nice drives with it, but the odd one would surprise me, like the bottom of the shaft wasn't quite as stable as it should be. Perhaps the kickpoint was a little too low. I read the profile the AD IZ and found one in a G400 LST and I can feel the kickpoint is just a little higher and as a result, it's more stable in my swing. Took about one session to get used to and now it's got to be the most accurate driver i've owned. Tour AD sure knows how to get it done.

[Nard_S]

> @balls_deep said:

 

> I really don't see how classic DG is a "demanding profile". I'd argue PX is much more so.

 

I buy clubs w/ "DG S300". It's a crap shoot which one I'm getting. SL's? Parallel? Parallel w/ swaged .355" tip? Some other AMT, progressive/descending weight,or lightened altered kick nonsense? Or the factory just flat out soft steps them as OEM spec? PX has same high kick/ stiffed tip profile that classic constant weighted 11 stepped DG has. DG S300 in that is 5.7 FCM vs the 6.0 of PX. So they play like hard stepped CW DG. Which is stiff. plus They might launch lower flex for flex. Dunno. Rory plays 6.5, but he has monster speed. Fowler, a guy who can hit a 2-iron 300 yards off the deck, is using S400 (probably tipped). I own clubs made for and owned by a Masters champ, they are S400's. I can hit em, can hit X plus in Rifle's, cannot do X in DG. So go figure. Blades and shafts are not quite same as player's CB and shafts. Using X100 in Ping i200 is not same as them in Miura's.

 

I 've gotten around w/ DG of all sorts "fine" for many years but reality was I was not hitting them to their profile. I come a lot closer now, and pretty sure I can handle PX or SP Blue's. Loading a shaft is one thing, unloading it properly too is another altogether. Like I said, seen handful of ams who do that just swell.

[mahonie]

> @balls_deep said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > @Nard_S said:

> > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > @balls_deep said:

> > > > > > > @BogeyParBogey said:

> > > > > > > > @revanant said:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It actually was the same shaft. The stock 620 MBs are shafted in Project X 6.0, same as my MP-4s.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Rev,

> > > > > > > Isn't the PX 6.0 way too much shaft? I'm in a similar range distance wise and much prefer regular flex.

> > > > > > > Dave

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Project X has actually been shown to spin excessively at times when playing too stiff of a flex in it. My stock 8 iron is 165 carry and I find the PX 6.0 (I have a normal set in addition to my LZ) to be plenty. So yeah, it's probably too much shaft for him but he likes his clubs.

> > > > >

> > > > > For what it’s worth, I didn’t seek out the Project X 6.0 for the 620 MB. It’s how they come as stock. Golf shop had a demo 7 iron, but no fitting heads.

> > > > >

> > > > > As it happens, I’ve gotten familiar with the shaft and very comfortable with it. I like the weight of the 120 gram shaft. As for flex, I just find it fairly smooth and not distracting.

> > > > >

> > > > > I really love the Apex shafts I have in my Hogan Redlines—I think they compare to dynalite gold, which is that same 120 gram weight, but a lot higher launching in my hands. Sadly, those things are basically out of production, though I’ve heard the new Elevate Tour shaft from TT is pretty similar.

> > > > >

> > > > > I do think I’m going to reshaft when I do my next grip change on my Mp-4s, though. I’m between going Modus 120 in Regular, or Modus 105 in stiff at the moment. I haven’t demoed Modus 120 in stiff, yet, but that’s next up.

> > > > >

> > > > > So long story short, the Project X seem to work well in my hands and they don’t bother me, but I may change things up soon just to tinker a bit.

> > > >

> > > > Project X is basically a Rifle shaft with a DG bend (high kick) profile. If you like Apex shafts, old Brunswick's FM Precisions or Rifles fit that build. I avoided DG for long time due to spinny issues and used both. Another option is DG in tapered tip but soft stepped 1X. KBS founder designed the Brunswick's, so you might do well with those too. The #1 issue with MB's and fit is inherently higher spin so shaft choice is critical. Bend point to swing affects launch which can balance out spin issues in the positive or negative. Imo, classic DG profile is one of the hardest design intents to swing to. Hogan was ahead of his time with the custom profile (softer tipped ) that Apex shafts had then. They may have used Dynalite or FM's, but stepping was to their own specs.

> > > >

> > >

> > > I think for anybody that doesn’t mind the weight, DG is one of the most versatile shafts for a variety of swings - there’s a reason it has been the universal stock shaft for so long. It just works. I’d argue PX suits a way smaller portion of golfers. Contrary to what many believe about their own swing, most amateurs struggle with spin levels that are too low rather than too high. I love PX but it certainly does not fit a lot of golfers.

> >

> > There's a boat load of variants, sub-classes on DG, hence the versatility, and they have massaged things over the years too. Classic, constant weighted DG is the gold standard of profiles (see high tour acceptance to this day) but high kick, stiff tipped profiles are not the easiest for duffers to master. It's part of the reason they keep tweaking up variants. Design intent is low launch, high spin with late peak & high apex. Very few ams actually swing to all three. I can count on one hand how many rec players I've seen actually do that to full control. Pro's have flatter, wider, descending AOA while the proper de-loft of face is happening. Classic DG is designed to that and rewards it better than most all.

> >

> > Ams who do not have enough spin have basic swing issues. A stiffed tipped/soft butt shaft can add spin and initial launch but it is a mis match solution that can lead to ingraining really poor mechanics. If it's the weighting that's the appeals, there's a bunch of 120-130 gram options with less demanding profiles around.

>

> I really don't see how classic DG is a "demanding profile". I'd argue PX is much more so.

 

Some interesting points on shafts in this fitting:

 

Looks like a pretty good experience all round.

[wmblake2000]

> @Kingcat990 said:

 

> What are you talking about?!? Its been 85°-90°! If anything, summer just began but the days are getting shorter. We need to get out and do a dawn patrol round soon.

 

Hey bud, wife and I are in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. We just walked the last stage of the Camino de Santiago (114 km) over 7 days. Incredible.

 

So the SoCal heat is all theory to me! But the days are shortening which means old geezers like me who love senior prices after 12 pm have to fight with other geezers.

 

I’ll reach out when we get back. Let’s do play!

 

[Tree Levino]

 

> @Nard_S said:

> > @balls_deep said:

>

> > I really don't see how classic DG is a "demanding profile". I'd argue PX is much more so.

>

> I buy clubs w/ "DG S300". It's a crap shoot which one I'm getting. SL's? Parallel? Parallel w/ swaged .355" tip? Some other AMT, progressive/descending weight,or lightened altered kick nonsense? Or the factory just flat out soft steps them as OEM spec? PX has same high kick/ stiffed tip profile that classic constant weighted 11 stepped DG has. DG S300 in that is 5.7 FCM vs the 6.0 of PX. So they play like hard stepped CW DG. Which is stiff. plus They might launch lower flex for flex. Dunno. Rory plays 6.5, but he has monster speed. Fowler, a guy who can hit a 2-iron 300 yards off the deck, is using S400 (probably tipped). I own clubs made for and owned by a Masters champ, they are S400's. I can hit em, can hit X plus in Rifle's, cannot do X in DG. So go figure. Blades and shafts are not quite same as player's CB and shafts. Using X100 in Ping i200 is not same as them in Miura's.

>

> I 've gotten around w/ DG of all sorts "fine" for many years but reality was I was not hitting them to their profile. I come a lot closer now, and pretty sure I can handle PX or SP Blue's. Loading a shaft is one thing, unloading it properly too is another altogether. Like I said, seen handful of ams who do that just swell.

 

PX 6.0 Fcm is 6.5 not 6.0. It plays a lot stiffer than standard DG S300. Amt variants play much softer again especially in the longer clubs. Rory also plays 7.0 which you can see is a beast of a shaft akin to X7. Spieth plays 6.5 and isn’t overly fast. I think a lot of people have mental hurdles with shafts though. I have a buddy who plays mini tour. He uses MB001 with DG X7 and I can hit his clubs just fine. I’m not overly fast either - 90mph or just over 7i. I can still spin his PW back on a green. That said I definitely wouldn’t choose that shaft for myself. All I mean is that if you have a preconception about what you’re hitting you might swing harder or subconsciously change your timing which will rarely result in a good swing.

 

To the above, modus 120 is a weird profile and I really don’t understand the love for it on here. Again, it fits a unique golfer I don’t think it’s for everyone. Unless you are very deliberate through your swing you will get inconsistent results. I am too violent from the top and even the X has terrible dispersion for me. It’s a weird shaft because the tip is very stable so once the ball is going a direction it will scream on that line but because the butt is so noodly I feel like that start direction can get wonky very easily if you’re fast. I’d try the TX but I think that would take too much spin off for what I want. I’m interested in the 125 and 130 though both of which I’ve never hit.

 

[LowAndLeft32]

So what would you guys say is the ideal swing type for the DG S300 shaft?

[Nard_S]

balls_deep

Good points and corrections on FCM. So 6.0 PX is just about X00 stiff.

 

 

[Nard_S]

> @LowAndLeft32 said:

> So what would you guys say is the ideal swing type for the DG S300 shaft?

 

Ideal? Divot pattern that is shallow in angle but bottoms 3"-4" in front of ball with a de-loft of face angle.

My reality for eons? Steeper angle, 2" bottom and little de-loft. With that, a Rifle profile worked much better. Moving back to S400, needed to improve all three. Swing speed, transition speed are prime considerations but so is efficiency of release where peak velocity hits. DG is designed for highly efficient unloads but that does not stop most from using them. Most all shaft offerings these days back off of that standard in some way. Popular way is via weight, or tip configuration, another is slightly more tip flex or outright lowering of bend point. Many times it's a combo of those.

 

I may be balls to walls on head type but I'm rather sober & conservative on shaft choices even if I buck "lighter is better" mentality that is in vogue. Respecting design intent of profile means hitting to that profile. Because at the end of day, a shaft pulls your swing, if pull is within reach , things go positive, if it's a bridge too far, things can go negative and be a waste of efforts. Rifle X plus (7.5) is easier for me to get on with than S300's that are hard stepped. I pay more with them if I'm steep & cheap. That's my definition of "demanding" and certainly not an all encompassing truth. But says a lot about DG.

[NRJyzr]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @LowAndLeft32 said:

> > So what would you guys say is the ideal swing type for the DG S300 shaft?

>

> Ideal? Divot pattern that is shallow in angle but bottoms 3"-4" in front of ball with a de-loft of face angle.

> My reality for eons? Steeper angle, 2" bottom and little de-loft. With that, a Rifle profile worked much better. Moving back to S400, needed to improve all three. Swing speed, transition speed are prime considerations but so is efficiency of release where peak velocity hits. DG is designed for highly efficient unloads but that does not stop most from using them. Most all shaft offerings these days back off of that standard in some way. Popular way is via weight, or tip configuration, another is slightly more tip flex or outright lowering of bend point. Many times it's a combo of those.

>

> I may be balls to walls on head type but I'm rather sober & conservative on shaft choices even if I buck "lighter is better" mentality that is in vogue. Respecting design intent of profile means hitting to that profile. Because at the end of day, a shaft pulls your swing, if pull is within reach , things go positive, if it's a bridge too far, things can go negative and be a waste of efforts. Rifle X plus (7.5) is easier for me to get on with than S300's that are hard stepped. I pay more with them if I'm steep & cheap. That's my definition of "demanding" and certainly not an all encompassing truth. But says a lot about DG.

 

To me, it's about trajectory, and how the profiles fit your swing. Not to mention how your swing is affected by the various profiles.

 

I hit the ball fairly high, and like the stiffer tip feel, so DG works for me. Not a fan of the feel I get from PX, or the somewhat higher flight compared to DG. Modus3 130 has me bouncing my shots off local airline traffic. In contrast, used to play with a guy who had slightly more speed than me but hit a significantly lower ball. DG wasn't his favorite due to the trajectory, he had to look to other shafts (don't remember what he preferred).

 

[LowAndLeft32]

> @Nard_S said:

> > @LowAndLeft32 said:

> > So what would you guys say is the ideal swing type for the DG S300 shaft?

>

> Ideal? Divot pattern that is shallow in angle but bottoms 3"-4" in front of ball with a de-loft of face angle.

> My reality for eons? Steeper angle, 2" bottom and little de-loft. With that, a Rifle profile worked much better. Moving back to S400, needed to improve all three. Swing speed, transition speed are prime considerations but so is efficiency of release where peak velocity hits. DG is designed for highly efficient unloads but that does not stop most from using them. Most all shaft offerings these days back off of that standard in some way. Popular way is via weight, or tip configuration, another is slightly more tip flex or outright lowering of bend point. Many times it's a combo of those.

>

> I may be balls to walls on head type but I'm rather sober & conservative on shaft choices even if I buck "lighter is better" mentality that is in vogue. Respecting design intent of profile means hitting to that profile. Because at the end of day, a shaft pulls your swing, if pull is within reach , things go positive, if it's a bridge too far, things can go negative and be a waste of efforts. Rifle X plus (7.5) is easier for me to get on with than S300's that are hard stepped. I pay more with them if I'm steep & cheap. That's my definition of "demanding" and certainly not an all encompassing truth. But says a lot about DG.

 

So I doubt that I have a "high efficiency unload". Im a little steep and have an inconsistent swing bottom. I have ether a 3 inch in front swing bottom usually on the range and tend to hit it thin on the course. So not efficient!! Driver speed is ~108mph and I have a fast transition.

[Nard_S]

 

DG 's profile trajectory is late, acute, parabolic type. A Rifle is higher launching but flatter. How design interacts with swing and what shakes out can be all over map to desired preference. I prefer the former without it "falling out of sky". Long ascension of flight & "good spin" is big key to dispersion control. Out of virtue and non virtue I'm a high ball swinger. Flexing up in Rifle gets me closer to ideal but attaining that in DG has been more about delivering the unload better via technique and not choosing a certain variant of them. When I do it right, dispersion control goes to another level that Rifle's of higher flax barely match.

 

Forgive all rambling about this but it's what really holds my interest in gear these days. I'll hopefully have a lot more informed things to say once I employ several builds that are centered around this topic.

[Nard_S]

> @LowAndLeft32 said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @LowAndLeft32 said:

> > > So what would you guys say is the ideal swing type for the DG S300 shaft?

> >

> > Ideal? Divot pattern that is shallow in angle but bottoms 3"-4" in front of ball with a de-loft of face angle.

> > My reality for eons? Steeper angle, 2" bottom and little de-loft. With that, a Rifle profile worked much better. Moving back to S400, needed to improve all three. Swing speed, transition speed are prime considerations but so is efficiency of release where peak velocity hits. DG is designed for highly efficient unloads but that does not stop most from using them. Most all shaft offerings these days back off of that standard in some way. Popular way is via weight, or tip configuration, another is slightly more tip flex or outright lowering of bend point. Many times it's a combo of those.

> >

> > I may be balls to walls on head type but I'm rather sober & conservative on shaft choices even if I buck "lighter is better" mentality that is in vogue. Respecting design intent of profile means hitting to that profile. Because at the end of day, a shaft pulls your swing, if pull is within reach , things go positive, if it's a bridge too far, things can go negative and be a waste of efforts. Rifle X plus (7.5) is easier for me to get on with than S300's that are hard stepped. I pay more with them if I'm steep & cheap. That's my definition of "demanding" and certainly not an all encompassing truth. But says a lot about DG.

>

> So I doubt that I have a "high efficiency unload". Im a little steep and have an inconsistent swing bottom. I have ether a 3 inch in front swing bottom usually on the range and tend to hit it thin on the course. So not efficient!! Driver speed is ~108mph and I have a fast transition.

 

Not far off from you, all I can suggest is just keep working it to better pay off or try something other. My experience, something other is easier, not really better though.

 

[BIG STU]

> @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > @deejaid said:

> > > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > > @Kingcat990 said:

> > > > What a very strange and awesome cut muscle iron. Beautiful sticks. Let's see them faces

> > >

> > > Yes, that is a really interesting muscle design. Wonder what the two stars represent?

> > > Nice looking clubs, and great pictures, **deejaid**.

> >

> >

> > Thanks man. Yeah, I was wondering about the two stars also, although searching eBay those two stars made it easy to spot an exact matching sand wedge also with the two stars. Might need to pick that up.

> >

> > From the Macgregor catalog “For the discriminating golfer, the backs of these precision broached blades are specially grooved for a mathematically accurate counter-balancing of weight, providing a compact hitting area- power into the shot, distance into the ball.”

> >

> > A set of 8 (2-9) was $72.00

>

> I wouldn't normally advise anyone to pick up a Mac sand wedge*, but for those beauties, I'd make an exception. As long as the price was reasonable, of course.

>

> "Mathematically accurate counter-balancing....." Nice to see that marketing talk has changed so little in 70 years!

>

> As for the 2 stars, it puzzled me because with irons named after Byron Nelson, the logical thing would be one star for the "lone star state" he was from.

>

>

> * The SW in my Mac Tourney's R58s has to be one of the worst-designed sand wedges I have ever seen. And the offset on the SW in my reissue VIP irons from the 80s is just ridiculous. The SW in my Muirfields isn't so bad, though.

 

I know exactly what you are talking about on offset on Mac Sand Wedges. I have a VIP Curtis Strange that he gave me himself ( another story for another day) and it is offset as heck. I have a Nicklaus Muirfield that I picked up off of one of the piles and it has the offset from he double hockey sticks. Now most of my older Penna Sand wedges do not have a lot of offset.

[BIG STU]

> @balls_deep said:

>

> > @Nard_S said:

> > > @balls_deep said:

> >

> > > I really don't see how classic DG is a "demanding profile". I'd argue PX is much more so.

> >

> > I buy clubs w/ "DG S300". It's a crap shoot which one I'm getting. SL's? Parallel? Parallel w/ swaged .355" tip? Some other AMT, progressive/descending weight,or lightened altered kick nonsense? Or the factory just flat out soft steps them as OEM spec? PX has same high kick/ stiffed tip profile that classic constant weighted 11 stepped DG has. DG S300 in that is 5.7 FCM vs the 6.0 of PX. So they play like hard stepped CW DG. Which is stiff. plus They might launch lower flex for flex. Dunno. Rory plays 6.5, but he has monster speed. Fowler, a guy who can hit a 2-iron 300 yards off the deck, is using S400 (probably tipped). I own clubs made for and owned by a Masters champ, they are S400's. I can hit em, can hit X plus in Rifle's, cannot do X in DG. So go figure. Blades and shafts are not quite same as player's CB and shafts. Using X100 in Ping i200 is not same as them in Miura's.

> >

> > I 've gotten around w/ DG of all sorts "fine" for many years but reality was I was not hitting them to their profile. I come a lot closer now, and pretty sure I can handle PX or SP Blue's. Loading a shaft is one thing, unloading it properly too is another altogether. Like I said, seen handful of ams who do that just swell.

>

> PX 6.0 Fcm is 6.5 not 6.0. It plays a lot stiffer than standard DG S300. Amt variants play much softer again especially in the longer clubs. Rory also plays 7.0 which you can see is a beast of a shaft akin to X7. Spieth plays 6.5 and isn’t overly fast. I think a lot of people have mental hurdles with shafts though. I have a buddy who plays mini tour. He uses MB001 with DG X7 and I can hit his clubs just fine. I’m not overly fast either - 90mph or just over 7i. I can still spin his PW back on a green. That said I definitely wouldn’t choose that shaft for myself. All I mean is that if you have a preconception about what you’re hitting you might swing harder or subconsciously change your timing which will rarely result in a good swing.

>

> To the above, modus 120 is a weird profile and I really don’t understand the love for it on here. Again, it fits a unique golfer I don’t think it’s for everyone. Unless you are very deliberate through your swing you will get inconsistent results. I am too violent from the top and even the X has terrible dispersion for me. It’s a weird shaft because the tip is very stable so once the ball is going a direction it will scream on that line but because the butt is so noodly I feel like that start direction can get wonky very easily if you’re fast. I’d try the TX but I think that would take too much spin off for what I want. I’m interested in the 125 and 130 though both of which I’ve never hit.

>

>

 

Found that out about the PX-6.0 in a set of 2013 forged Callaways---- Those things were stiffer than any S-300 I ever hit---- My friend's frequency machine proved that---- those are the clubs that led to my back flare ups--- I will not hit stiff shafts anymore except wedges--- I am having trouble dealing with it but I am getting older and I can still hit a stiff shaft but my back protests it too much. Played 9 holes the other week with my 62 FC- 4000s that have Propel 2 shafts and aboout 8:00 that night I knew about it. So I guess my golf is limited to a few sets I have without S-300 or Propel shafts. Trust me getting old sucks

[BIG STU]

> @Nard_S said:

>

> DG 's profile trajectory is late, acute, parabolic type. A Rifle is higher launching but flatter. How design interacts with swing and what shakes out can be all over map to desired preference. I prefer the former without it "falling out of sky". Long ascension of flight & "good spin" is big key to dispersion control. Out of virtue and non virtue I'm a high ball swinger. Flexing up in Rifle gets me closer to ideal but attaining that in DG has been more about delivering the unload better via technique and not choosing a certain variant of them. When I do it right, dispersion control goes to another level that Rifle's of higher flax barely match.

>

> Forgive all rambling about this but it's what really holds my interest in gear these days. I'll hopefully have a lot more informed things to say once I employ several builds that are centered around this topic.

 

I have to agree with you on the Rifle shafts---- Those KZGs I am bagging now have the old 5.5 Rifle Precisions in them. Love the feel of the shaft head combo and I have always been a DG man. Have not had those clubs on the machine and really don't think I want to. I will confess I did not build those clubs but who ever did knew their stuff. Actually I had to add a little lead tape top on several of them because I hit the ball too high.

[Nard_S]

> @"BIG STU" said:

> > @Nard_S said:

> >

> > DG 's profile trajectory is late, acute, parabolic type. A Rifle is higher launching but flatter. How design interacts with swing and what shakes out can be all over map to desired preference. I prefer the former without it "falling out of sky". Long ascension of flight & "good spin" is big key to dispersion control. Out of virtue and non virtue I'm a high ball swinger. Flexing up in Rifle gets me closer to ideal but attaining that in DG has been more about delivering the unload better via technique and not choosing a certain variant of them. When I do it right, dispersion control goes to another level that Rifle's of higher flax barely match.

> >

> > Forgive all rambling about this but it's what really holds my interest in gear these days. I'll hopefully have a lot more informed things to say once I employ several builds that are centered around this topic.

>

> I have to agree with you on the Rifle shafts---- Those KZGs I am bagging now have the old 5.5 Rifle Precisions in them. Love the feel of the shaft head combo and I have always been a DG man. Have not had those clubs on the machine and really don't think I want to. I will confess I did not build those clubs but who ever did knew their stuff. Actually I had to add a little lead tape top on several of them because I hit the ball too high.

 

I like Rifle's but it took me a long time to appreciate I can go much higher in flex and that they are better shafts there. If you can go DG S300, Rifle 6.5 to 7.0 is doable and work well.

 

 

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @"BIG STU" said:

> > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > @deejaid said:

> > > > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > > > @Kingcat990 said:

> > > > > What a very strange and awesome cut muscle iron. Beautiful sticks. Let's see them faces

> > > >

> > > > Yes, that is a really interesting muscle design. Wonder what the two stars represent?

> > > > Nice looking clubs, and great pictures, **deejaid**.

> > >

> > >

> > > Thanks man. Yeah, I was wondering about the two stars also, although searching eBay those two stars made it easy to spot an exact matching sand wedge also with the two stars. Might need to pick that up.

> > >

> > > From the Macgregor catalog “For the discriminating golfer, the backs of these precision broached blades are specially grooved for a mathematically accurate counter-balancing of weight, providing a compact hitting area- power into the shot, distance into the ball.”

> > >

> > > A set of 8 (2-9) was $72.00

> >

> > I wouldn't normally advise anyone to pick up a Mac sand wedge*, but for those beauties, I'd make an exception. As long as the price was reasonable, of course.

> >

> > "Mathematically accurate counter-balancing....." Nice to see that marketing talk has changed so little in 70 years!

> >

> > As for the 2 stars, it puzzled me because with irons named after Byron Nelson, the logical thing would be one star for the "lone star state" he was from.

> >

> >

> > * The SW in my Mac Tourney's R58s has to be one of the worst-designed sand wedges I have ever seen. And the offset on the SW in my reissue VIP irons from the 80s is just ridiculous. The SW in my Muirfields isn't so bad, though.

>

> I know exactly what you are talking about on offset on Mac Sand Wedges. I have a VIP Curtis Strange that he gave me himself ( another story for another day) and it is offset as heck. I have a Nicklaus Muirfield that I picked up off of one of the piles and it has the offset from he double hockey sticks. Now most of my older Penna Sand wedges do not have a lot of offset.

 

I'm glad it's not just me, and I am sure you've seen dozens more Mac sand wedges than I have.

The thing I find with offset is that there are some clubs where I don't mind it, and others where I can't stand it. The offset on my reissue Mac VIPs is ridiculous in the PW and SW (and pretty bad in the 9i, to be honest), but I don't mind the offset so much in a new BeCu gap wedge.

Not sure why that is.

[Christen_The_Sloop]

> @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > @"BIG STU" said:

> > > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > > @deejaid said:

> > > > > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > > > > @Kingcat990 said:

> > > > > > What a very strange and awesome cut muscle iron. Beautiful sticks. Let's see them faces

> > > > >

> > > > > Yes, that is a really interesting muscle design. Wonder what the two stars represent?

> > > > > Nice looking clubs, and great pictures, **deejaid**.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Thanks man. Yeah, I was wondering about the two stars also, although searching eBay those two stars made it easy to spot an exact matching sand wedge also with the two stars. Might need to pick that up.

> > > >

> > > > From the Macgregor catalog “For the discriminating golfer, the backs of these precision broached blades are specially grooved for a mathematically accurate counter-balancing of weight, providing a compact hitting area- power into the shot, distance into the ball.”

> > > >

> > > > A set of 8 (2-9) was $72.00

> > >

> > > I wouldn't normally advise anyone to pick up a Mac sand wedge*, but for those beauties, I'd make an exception. As long as the price was reasonable, of course.

> > >

> > > "Mathematically accurate counter-balancing....." Nice to see that marketing talk has changed so little in 70 years!

> > >

> > > As for the 2 stars, it puzzled me because with irons named after Byron Nelson, the logical thing would be one star for the "lone star state" he was from.

> > >

> > >

> > > * The SW in my Mac Tourney's R58s has to be one of the worst-designed sand wedges I have ever seen. And the offset on the SW in my reissue VIP irons from the 80s is just ridiculous. The SW in my Muirfields isn't so bad, though.

> >

> > I know exactly what you are talking about on offset on Mac Sand Wedges. I have a VIP Curtis Strange that he gave me himself ( another story for another day) and it is offset as heck. I have a Nicklaus Muirfield that I picked up off of one of the piles and it has the offset from he double hockey sticks. Now most of my older Penna Sand wedges do not have a lot of offset.

>

> I'm glad it's not just me, and I am sure you've seen dozens more Mac sand wedges than I have.

> The thing I find with offset is that there are some clubs where I don't mind it, and others where I can't stand it. The offset on my reissue Mac VIPs is ridiculous in the PW and SW (and pretty bad in the 9i, to be honest), but I don't mind the offset so much in a new BeCu gap wedge.

> Not sure why that is.

 

I can't count how many set wedges I have taking up space in my attic. The worst among them are the Bridgestone Proisme, The Macgregor R58 and the Pro82 (I didn't even need to look at it). The GW and SW in the TN87 is one where I don't mind looking them, but they have an inordinate amount of bounce that relegates them to where they are.

 

I finally picked up a Cleveland RTX4 forged 56 and it's just fun... I've really dialed in my chipping as of late. Got back to practicing with one ball (instead of 4 or 5) and it's not only improved my focus, but I seem to have found a really nice rhythm with pitches. Before one ball I'd use four or five and miss one or two, either scully or fat, just from carelessness. I want to eliminate that word from my golf vocabulary.

 

Thanks for all the ideas about shafts above too. I find it way too interesting.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @Christen_The_Sloop said:

> > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > @"BIG STU" said:

> > > > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > > > @deejaid said:

> > > > > > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > > > > > @Kingcat990 said:

> > > > > > > What a very strange and awesome cut muscle iron. Beautiful sticks. Let's see them faces

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yes, that is a really interesting muscle design. Wonder what the two stars represent?

> > > > > > Nice looking clubs, and great pictures, **deejaid**.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Thanks man. Yeah, I was wondering about the two stars also, although searching eBay those two stars made it easy to spot an exact matching sand wedge also with the two stars. Might need to pick that up.

> > > > >

> > > > > From the Macgregor catalog “For the discriminating golfer, the backs of these precision broached blades are specially grooved for a mathematically accurate counter-balancing of weight, providing a compact hitting area- power into the shot, distance into the ball.”

> > > > >

> > > > > A set of 8 (2-9) was $72.00

> > > >

> > > > I wouldn't normally advise anyone to pick up a Mac sand wedge*, but for those beauties, I'd make an exception. As long as the price was reasonable, of course.

> > > >

> > > > "Mathematically accurate counter-balancing....." Nice to see that marketing talk has changed so little in 70 years!

> > > >

> > > > As for the 2 stars, it puzzled me because with irons named after Byron Nelson, the logical thing would be one star for the "lone star state" he was from.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > * The SW in my Mac Tourney's R58s has to be one of the worst-designed sand wedges I have ever seen. And the offset on the SW in my reissue VIP irons from the 80s is just ridiculous. The SW in my Muirfields isn't so bad, though.

> > >

> > > I know exactly what you are talking about on offset on Mac Sand Wedges. I have a VIP Curtis Strange that he gave me himself ( another story for another day) and it is offset as heck. I have a Nicklaus Muirfield that I picked up off of one of the piles and it has the offset from he double hockey sticks. Now most of my older Penna Sand wedges do not have a lot of offset.

> >

> > I'm glad it's not just me, and I am sure you've seen dozens more Mac sand wedges than I have.

> > The thing I find with offset is that there are some clubs where I don't mind it, and others where I can't stand it. The offset on my reissue Mac VIPs is ridiculous in the PW and SW (and pretty bad in the 9i, to be honest), but I don't mind the offset so much in a new BeCu gap wedge.

> > Not sure why that is.

>

> I can't count how many set wedges I have taking up space in my attic. The worst among them are the Bridgestone Proisme, The Macgregor R58 and the Pro82 (I didn't even need to look at it). The GW and SW in the TN87 is one where I don't mind looking them, but they have an inordinate amount of bounce that relegates them to where they are.

>

> I finally picked up a Cleveland RTX4 forged 56 and it's just fun... I've really dialed in my chipping as of late. Got back to practicing with one ball (instead of 4 or 5) and it's not only improved my focus, but I seem to have found a really nice rhythm with pitches. Before one ball I'd use four or five and miss one or two, either scully or fat, just from carelessness. I want to eliminate that word from my golf vocabulary.

>

> Thanks for all the ideas about shafts above too. I find it way too interesting.

 

I don't care much for any of the Japanese set sand wedges from that period. I've one in a Mizuno ANGC set that's alright, and that's about it.

 

I still haven't bought the RTX4 forged wedges yet. I was pretty much about to take the plunge right before I got my hernia. Think I'll play my MD2s for the rest of the year. Got to say, though, that of all the wedges I hit (and I hit a lot), the RTX4 forged and the Bridgestone XW1s were the best in terms of look, feel, and cost.

Did you get the raw model?