Question about bore-through irons and distance

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

The lead-up to the question is a bit long, so I'll put it straight out first: do bore-through irons make the tip stiffer and reduce distance?

 

I bought a set of Wilsons Bulletback reissues recently, which I have shown off here already but am quite happy to do so again because they're beautiful, and I took them out for the first time to the range today. While I was impressed with them overall and look forward to putting in play with some persimmons in the spring, I noticed they were pretty much one club shorter than my other classic/old irons. For example, where I would be normally be hitting my Wilson FG-J8s 8i, I was hitting the BB reissue 7i, and so on. 

Now, I'm not terribly disconcerted by this, but I was trying to figure out why. I checked the lofts afterwards, and they were pretty much what I expected, and almost identical to my Wilson FG-J8s, Mizuno MS-7s and so one which all have a 50* PW and then go down in 4* increments (the BB reissue PW was 51*, but I after measuring it, I adjusted it to 50*).

Two factors that could have affected distance was the wind and shaft length. Today there was a VERY slight breeze against, but nowhere near enough to account for a whole club difference. Also, the PW and 9i are strangely quite short, which will account for some loss of clubbed speed, but then from the 7i down to the 3i, the lengths are pretty much identical to my other sets. I'm not sure why the PW and 9i are so short, but that's a question for another day.

So, using process of elimination, I wondered if the bore-through hosel/soles could be a factor. These BB reissues are the only irons I have now with a bore-though sole, and the first such irons I've hit in 30 years so I don't really have any reference points.

Does the bore-through hosel make the tip stiffer and thus reduce distance at all? Have any of you found anything similar?

 

[Stephen8802]

One thing to consider is how far the shaft is actually going in that club. In the last few months, I've pulled the shafts of a 1956 Staff Wedge and a 1984 Staff Fluid Feel 8 iron. The '56 shaft went all the way through to the bottom of the club, but the '84 8 iron only when a normal distance into the hosel because the plug is cosmetic. If your clubs are re-issues, that would put them in the late 80's/early 90's, which is later than the 8 iron I pulled, and my guess is that the shaft isn't actually going any deeper into the head. 

 

I'm replacing the '56 wedge shaft with a green band Rocket from a Spalding wedge of the same era, and that shaft does not go all the way through. So, in a few months when the weather is warm enough to epoxy and I can hit the re-shafted wedge alongside an 100% original I have, I'll be able to test if the extra inch of shaft makes a difference or not. 

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

9 minutes ago, Stephen8802 said:

One thing to consider is how far the shaft is actually going in that club. In the last few months, I've pulled the shafts of a 1956 Staff Wedge and a 1984 Staff Fluid Feel 8 iron. The '56 shaft went all the way through to the bottom of the club, but the '84 8 iron only when a normal distance into the hosel because the plug is cosmetic. If your clubs are re-issues, that would put them in the late 80's/early 90's, which is later than the 8 iron I pulled, and my guess is that the shaft isn't actually going any deeper into the head. 

 

I'm replacing the '56 wedge shaft with a green band Rocket from a Spalding wedge of the same era, and that shaft does not go all the way through. So, in a few months when the weather is warm enough to epoxy and I can hit the re-shafted wedge alongside an 100% original I have, I'll be able to test if the extra inch of shaft makes a difference or not. 

 

That's interesting. I hadn't considered the fact that the plug might be just a cosmetic feature. I should compare some other clubs with the same shaft (DGS300) to check where the first step starts. 

Just curious about the difference in distance. I have to say, they are fantastic irons to hit. 

[Stephen8802]

I picked up an original Bullet Back 8 iron yesterday with an aluminum shaft. It won't help your question on distance, but I've always been curious how aluminum shafts compare to steel. Now for $2, I can go to to the range with that and my '67 8 iron and see the difference for myself. 

 

It's a real nice head, I can see why they re-issued it. I had told my wife I was done buying Staff sets after my 8th set, but that Bullet Back sure is pretty...

[NRJyzr]

49 minutes ago, No_Catchy_Nickname said:

 

That's interesting. I hadn't considered the fact that the plug might be just a cosmetic feature. I should compare some other clubs with the same shaft (DGS300) to check where the first step starts. 

Just curious about the difference in distance. I have to say, they are fantastic irons to hit. 

 

The drill-thru hosel isnt really cosmetic, it's serving a purpose.   That being helping to remove some weight from the hosel, allowing the CG to be closer to the center of the face.  Wilson were better than some in those efforts.

 

Wilson also sold the drill thru as a feel enhancement.  I have no idea if that were actually true, haven't seen reports that anyone has tested it, or shared results of those tests.

 

As for the bore thru question in your first post...  bore thru installations don't really stiffen the tip, but they do make the shaft play stiffer, generally speaking.  Another generalization, the butt of the shaft is the stiffer part.  A bore thru install allows more butt section to be left intact, which makes the shaft play somewhat stiffer than if it were a standard bore installation.

 

The exception to that is the long hosel bore thru of clubs like the 975D.  That meant close to four inches installed in the hosel, long enough to make some difference to the tip.  Most bore thru hosels aren't appreciably different from standard bore situations, but the 975D is a completely different situation.  😉

 

Edited to add: the Wilson Fluid Feel irons don't seem to be actual bore thru hosels, though they may have been at some point, as Stephen points out.  The reports of reshafts I've heard about more recent models are similar to Stephen's 84 Fluid Feel.

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by NRJyzr

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

12 hours ago, Stephen8802 said:

I picked up an original Bullet Back 8 iron yesterday with an aluminum shaft. It won't help your question on distance, but I've always been curious how aluminum shafts compare to steel. Now for $2, I can go to to the range with that and my '67 8 iron and see the difference for myself. 

 

It's a real nice head, I can see why they re-issued it. I had told my wife I was done buying Staff sets after my 8th set, but that Bullet Back sure is pretty...

 

I've a set of Golfcraft irons with aluminium shafts. I wouldn't describe myself as a fan, but I haven't really given them a far shake. 

 

@NRJyzr

I might be able to test the feel enhancement theory! I just noticed that these BB reissues are very similar to some custom Staff Blades I have (I posted them a while back, they were stamped "PILGRIM"), right down to the three knurled rings on the hosel. The custom Staffs have a different toe grind and NO bore-through, and the "gouge" on the back is smaller, but otherwise they are very close. From a quick comparison, the shafts, shaft lengths and shaft stepping all appear to be identical (which strongly supports Stephen8802's claim that the plugs were cosmetic on later models). I know the lofts are identical because I've already checked and adjusted the PILGRIMS to my preferences, i.e. starting with a 50* PW and working down in 4* increments. Perfect for a test to see if feel is different, and distance. I haven't hit the PILGRIMS much, but I will now be surprised if distance is different.

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by No_Catchy_Nickname

[Swingingk]

Earlier Fluid-Feel irons used a special long tip shaft that extended deep into the hosel (almost to the sole) and had fine threads on the tips which engaged with a threaded hosel.  Some time during the 60's Wilson dropped the special long-taper threaded shaft idea and went with a more "normal" shaft/hosel connection. 

 

The Fluid-Feel hosel does two things:  first the bore-thru moves weight away from the hosel and out into the head more and the material filling the hole acts as a vibration dampener.  The stuff filling the hole in the sole of the club is not a cap or plug but is in fact some kind of rubber which wad injected in there at the factory after the club was assembled and goes up inside the shaft about two inches.

 

To the best of my knowledge any time you pull the shaft of a Fluid-Feel iron will lose the "fluid feel" as at least half of the dampening material will go out with the shaft. Yes Wilson did sell replacement "plugs" for reshafting but these were cosmetic only and would not have any real dampening characteristics.  

 

I would guess that the originally installed Fluid-Feel dampening material would have a similar effect as wooden dowels or those ProSoft inserts crammed down the shaft, ie: not much.  Pretty cool 50's-tech gimmick though!