Reshafting vintage irons

[musicguy]

I tried this in the regular section but got no help. Hoping the classic iron lovers will have some knowledge to pass to me. I have a set of Wilson FG51 irons with Firestick shafts. I love playing these clubs but want to know if anyone change to modern shafts with these irons and if it made any difference. Thanks

[Nessism]

The Firestick is a mid weight shaft with mid flight characteristics. They play true to flex of the era from which they came, which is to say they are stiff to flex compared to many modern shafts; the butt frequency for the 5 iron is 320cpm, same as Dynamic Gold. In terms of whether changing them to something different would "made any difference", that would depend on YOU. Personally, I'd leave them unless there is some specific way you feel they are letting you down. For example, if they feel too heavy, or light. Something like that.

[musicguy]

I appreciate the information. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[James the Hogan Fan]

Also recall the first rule of vintage clubs, "thou shalt not reshaft a wilson". It is extremely difficult to pull shafts from wilson iron heads without cutting and drilling. They are extraordinarily stubborn...

[Swingingk]

I guess I'm one of the guys who didn't help you much in your original post - sorry about that. I haven't personally tried reshafting FG51's but I would think you shouldn't have any trouble. I've reshafted 71' Buttonback's with TT S300's and they worked out fine. The shafts came out easily enough and they played like one might expect an S300 shafted blade - low and penetrating. I've also done several sets of early 80's FG17's in Project-X 6.0 and, hmmm... S300's I think. Same kind of results although the PX's flew higher but were a bit much for me. I pulled some Firesticks from a buddys Buttonback 90's remakes and they came out ok too. The only Wilson's I've ever had trouble with were my 59' Dyna-powered irons. Those were a real beast to pull the original Pro-fit shafts as they were actually threaded into the heads with left hand fine threads. They were pinned too. Also the shaft tips were smaller than anything normal so the heads needed reaming. It was a pretty nasty job but once I figured out a process it wasn't too bad. Those irons got older Rifle 5.0 stepless shafts. I found those a little soft for my tastes.

Anyway, that's about all I've got on the subject. Hopefully that helps a bit more than my original post. Good luck!

 

Ps: my buddy with the remake Buttonback's had Firestick 3.5 shafts in them. He hits his 9 iron 150y for what its worth so I'd agree these play a bit stiff to flex. The only flex designations I've ever seen for these shafts is 2.8 (stiff) and 3.5 (regular). I think I read that the numbers represent shaft torque ratings, which seems to make sense. Again - good luck with your irons.

[musicguy]

Thanks for the comments and information. I absolutely love the feel of these heads. I suppose a modern day shaft wouldn't help regain a little distance lost due to the old school lofts.

[Swingingk]

No problem. I'm no expert but I'd doubt you would see much distance gain from new shafts unless you add length, or if the current shafts are a lot different from what you're used to playing.

 

I'd say the main factor in enjoying vintage or older irons is coming to terms with the loft vs number thing. Most gear from the 80's and earlier have higher lofts per club than modern stuff so you can be off by 1 or more clubs when comparing them to your modern set. My early 70's Wilson blades are exactly one club number off of my modern irons. The set is 2-Pw but they play just like 3-gw when compared to modern specs. Once a person gets it into their head that the old school 6 iron is the same loft and length of your new modern 7 or 8 iron you can begin to play well with them and not be frustrated. It's actually quite amusing when your golf partners fly the 150y par three after you told them you hit a six. Good times! Ha!

[57Staff]

I usually reshaft my vintage purchases without any issues. Did have some problems fitting steel shafts to my Macgregor TR1A irons due to those being aluminum shafted originally. I usually reshaft with X shafts to get the flex I like.

[BIG STU]

> @Swingingk said:

> No problem. I'm no expert but I'd doubt you would see much distance gain from new shafts unless you add length, or if the current shafts are a lot different from what you're used to playing.

>

> I'd say the main factor in enjoying vintage or older irons is coming to terms with the loft vs number thing. Most gear from the 80's and earlier have higher lofts per club than modern stuff so you can be off by 1 or more clubs when comparing them to your modern set. My early 70's Wilson blades are exactly one club number off of my modern irons. The set is 2-Pw but they play just like 3-gw when compared to modern specs. Once a person gets it into their head that the old school 6 iron is the same loft and length of your new modern 7 or 8 iron you can begin to play well with them and not be frustrated. It's actually quite amusing when your golf partners fly the 150y par three after you told them you hit a six. Good times! Ha!

 

LOL most folks do not understand lofts on the new versus old clubs. What is funny when I play my somewhat modern KZG CBs I have seen people club off me. They think just because they are CB irons they are jacked lofts. Stock mine are a more traditional loft based off a 47* PW. After playing my old VIPs for years even when the hot lofted irons came out it does not bother me one bit if I am hitting a 6 iron where someone else is hitting a 7 or 8. I play my own game.

[BIG STU]

> @musicguy said:

> I tried this in the regular section but got no help. Hoping the classic iron lovers will have some knowledge to pass to me. I have a set of Wilson FG51 irons with Firestick shafts. I love playing these clubs but want to know if anyone change to modern shafts with these irons and if it made any difference. Thanks

 

You are not going to get any replies in the main forums on any subject having to do with classic clubs. First off they do not know zilch over there and they think us old geezers are touched in the head for wanting to play 'that antique outdated junk". They are of the thought of the latest and greatest "twisted sister face , jailbird technology and injected face with KY jelly school. Here I see the Wilson gurus have spoken and as usual some good advice. Yep you want to know anything about classic clubs come to this side of the tracks like you did. We eat sleep breathe and PLAY classic clubs. We have a wealth of knowledge on the classic stuff and are more than willing to help

[Shallowface]

> @Swingingk said:

> I guess I'm one of the guys who didn't help you much in your original post - sorry about that. I haven't personally tried reshafting FG51's but I would think you shouldn't have any trouble. **I've reshafted 71' Buttonback's with TT S300's and they worked out fine**.

>

> Ps: my buddy with the remake Buttonback's had Firestick 3.5 shafts in them. He hits his 9 iron 150y for what its worth so I'd agree these play a bit stiff to flex. The only flex designations I've ever seen for these shafts is 2.8 (stiff) and 3.5 (regular). I think I read that the numbers represent shaft torque ratings, which seems to make sense. Again - good luck with your irons.

 

When you reshafted the 71 Buttonbacks, did you have to do any drilling before installing the S300s?

Regarding the Firesticks, I have seen a 2.0 which would be the x-stiff model, and a 4.5 which is the ladies model.

 

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @57Staff said:

> I usually reshaft my vintage purchases without any issues. Did have some problems fitting steel shafts to my Macgregor TR1A irons due to those being aluminum shafted originally. I usually reshaft with X shafts to get the flex I like.

 

I'd like to hear a little bit more about that re-shaft job with the TR1A irons if possible, please. I've a set of some Golfcraft irons with aluminium shafts, and I have toyed with the idea of re-shafting them with steel. But the shaft diameter is considerably bigger, so much so that I don't think a regular shim would do the job.

[NRJyzr]

> @musicguy said:

> Thanks for the comments and information. I absolutely love the feel of these heads. I suppose a modern day shaft wouldn't help regain a little distance lost due to the old school lofts.

 

There's no actual distance loss. Or, no real distance gains from modern lofts. Loft is the primary determinant for distance for each person's swing, the number is completely irrelevant. A 40* club is still a 40* club, regardless of it saying 9, 8, or 7 on the sole.

 

[BIG STU]

> @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > @57Staff said:

> > I usually reshaft my vintage purchases without any issues. Did have some problems fitting steel shafts to my Macgregor TR1A irons due to those being aluminum shafted originally. I usually reshaft with X shafts to get the flex I like.

>

> I'd like to hear a little bit more about that re-shaft job with the TR1A irons if possible, please. I've a set of some Golfcraft irons with aluminium shafts, and I have toyed with the idea of re-shafting them with steel. But the shaft diameter is considerably bigger, so much so that I don't think a regular shim would do the job.

 

Well first off I do not like to shim over 010 which perhaps is one of my quirks. Now you can make shims from brass shim stock or do what some others do use perforated dry wall tape. I remember on here the other night on another thread some said what an aluminum shaft diameter was on some Wilsons and I think they had to shim a 370 some 015 or so and I made the same statement. Personally I have never used the drywall tape method but other WRXers swear by it

[Swingingk]

> @Shallowface said:

> > @Swingingk said:

> > I guess I'm one of the guys who didn't help you much in your original post - sorry about that. I haven't personally tried reshafting FG51's but I would think you shouldn't have any trouble. **I've reshafted 71' Buttonback's with TT S300's and they worked out fine**.

> >

> > Ps: my buddy with the remake Buttonback's had Firestick 3.5 shafts in them. He hits his 9 iron 150y for what its worth so I'd agree these play a bit stiff to flex. The only flex designations I've ever seen for these shafts is 2.8 (stiff) and 3.5 (regular). I think I read that the numbers represent shaft torque ratings, which seems to make sense. Again - good luck with your irons.

>

> When you reshafted the 71 Buttonbacks, did you have to do any drilling before installing the S300s?

> Regarding the Firesticks, I have seen a 2.0 which would be the x-stiff model, and a 4.5 which is the ladies model.

>

 

Say, that's interesting about the other flexes. It stands to reason there would be more variances than just the two. They made the Firestick shafts in some kind of graphite too - if not in the irons then the woods for sure. If nothing else the name "Firestick" is pretty cool.

As for the Buttonbacks I do believe I had to ream them out a little but it was a while ago and I can't remember it clearly. If I recall correctly only a very small amount needed to come out to get them to fit taper tips.

[OsnolaKinnard]

I know this is an older topic, but I just snagged a set of MacGregor Tourney Custom irons.  They do NOT have "the 985" on them...just Tourney Custom.

 

I had a set of the TC the 985s 25 years ago that I found in a pawn shop for $40 and was surprised at how easy they were to hit.  I re-gripped them and played them and really loved these clubs.  Like a dum dum, I had a guy that owned a driving range offer me a brand new Ping TiSI for them...hell yeah I traded, LIKE A MORON.

 

Well, I found a set of TC's for $50 and they are 2-10, and probably need to be rechromed or stripped and made raw.  That being said, I may do nothing to them and just game them if they're in decent shape.

 

Before I go investing a ton of money into these, and yes, its purely sentimental reasons, I have a couple of questions.

 

What is the hosel diameter, .355 or .370 or something else?

 

What were the original lofts?  

 

Will I have trouble adjusting them for lie angle upward 2*?

 

Were the hosels threaded like the older Wilsons?

 

What 'modern' shaft would approximate the old Propel 2 or 3 shaft from the good old days?

 

I don't know the real 'playing characteristics' of the old Propel shafts, but they felt 'soft', but 'in control' and really remind me of something like the Nippon Pro NS1150.  I did not hit 'towering' shots, but they never ever felt harsh and I did remember I did spin the ball alot, but that was probably due more to playing the Titleist Professional 90 more than anything.

 

Any knowledge or information you can pass down about these irons would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

[The Aspidistra in the Hall]

Continuing the fun of adding to ancient threads, I reamed out some threaded Macgregors to .370 to take parallel shafts very recently. It was easy. I bought a Straight Shank Hand Reamer 12.4mm from China, shipped to the UK for £13 (do your own convesion) and it gave a perfect fit in no time at all for the set. Cheap, unsophisticated  and easy. Shipping from China was about a week.

[raggal62]

15 hours ago, The Aspidistra in the Hall said:

Continuing the fun of adding to ancient threads, I reamed out some threaded Macgregors to .370 to take parallel shafts very recently. It was easy. I bought a Straight Shank Hand Reamer 12.4mm from China, shipped to the UK for £13 (do your own convesion) and it gave a perfect fit in no time at all for the set. Cheap, unsophisticated  and easy. Shipping from China was about a week.

Yes a simple job. Reaming works especially well with malleable forged carbon steel. A little more work involved with stainless but still when you consider your only removing 1/2" of material from the bottom of the bore, a relatively easy task indeed.

[The Aspidistra in the Hall]

Such processes appear intimidating to first timers, at first sight. My purpose in posting was to allay any such fears.