Swingweight: confusion?

[Excelsior75]

I am currently, alternating/gaming two sets of used, now-customized irons:

• Titleist 681  (DGS300)
• Titleist 710MB  (Project X 6.0)

Both sets have been extended by 1” and 0.5” (681s ad 710s respectively)

So, now:
Swingweight for the 681: between D5-D8
Swingweight for the 710MB: C8-D2

Why is this?  Golf-technician messed up the extensions, wrong way-around.
(Plus, seems like 710MBs shafts have been trimmed 1” but equally at both ends.)

I hit both sets of irons fine.
Distance/dispersion is not that variable.


Why is this?

[Howard_Jones]

7 hours ago, Excelsior75 said:

I am currently, alternating/gaming two sets of used, now-customized irons:

• Titleist 681  (DGS300)
• Titleist 710MB  (Project X 6.0)

Both sets have been extended by 1” and 0.5” (681s ad 710s respectively)

So, now:
Swingweight for the 681: between D5-D8
Swingweight for the 710MB: C8-D2

Why is this?  Golf-technician messed up the extensions, wrong way-around.
(Plus, seems like 710MBs shafts have been trimmed 1” but equally at both ends.)

I hit both sets of irons fine.
Distance/dispersion is not that variable.


Why is this?

 

It sounds like one set with standard wgt heads. The other with B weight (down 7 grams), plus higher grip wgt on the set with B wgt heads, who pull the scale a trick.

 

If actual play length is 0.5" apart, 3 SWP comes from PL difference, so you have to check actual PL and total wgt to see where the difference comes from, so with grip model and wgt.

Edited May 30 by Howard_Jones

[gdb99]

9 hours ago, Excelsior75 said:

Why is this?  Golf-technician messed up the extensions, wrong way-around.
(Plus, seems like 710MBs shafts have been trimmed 1” but equally at both ends.)

Why do you think he trimmed the shafts at both ends? The heads should be taper tip. 

[Stuart_G]

9 hours ago, Excelsior75 said:

Why is this?

 

Are you asking why the SW are so different?   Or why you hit them both fine despite being so different?

 

As far as why the swing weights are so different,  there are just too many unknown variables to say for sure.   Lot's of possibilities - some important - some not so much.

 

What are the actual measured (not just the published length specs) playing lengths before and after extending (e.g. just 7i or 5i length is fine)?   

What are the total club static weights (again just 7i or 5i is fine)?

What were the swing weights before extending?

What specific extension were used in each?   Were both sets extended by the same tech at the same time?

What grips - and are they the same on both clubs?

What did the tech's do (if anything) to try and manage the swing weight when the extensions were added?

 

 

As far as why the different swing weights doesn't seem to be effecting performance that much:

 

1)  Some people are just more or less sensitive to swing weight (or really MOI or head weight) changes.

2) Swing weight was intended as a proxy for MOI - but there are a lot of things that can effect the swing weight scale reading that don't really effect the MOI e.g.  like grip weight or added butt weight.   So the difference in swing weight values is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the MOI differences in the clubs.   You'd need to put them on an actual MOI measuring device to see that.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Howard_Jones said:

It sounds like one set with standard wgt heads. The other with B weight (down 7 grams)

 

I was thinking the same - but would mean that the one with 'b' weight heads likely came out of the factory over length and the other set didn't.   I'm guessing the different extension amounts were to get both sets to the same length.  But that's just speculation.

 

 

 

Edited May 30 by Stuart_G

[Excelsior75]

5 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

 

It sounds like one set with standard wgt heads. The other with B weight (down 7 grams), plus higher grip wgt on the set with B wgt heads, who pull the scale a trick.

 

If actual play length is 0.5" apart, 3 SWP comes from PL difference, so you have to check actual PL and total wgt to see where the difference comes from, so with grip model and wgt.

Originally, I thought a) 681s had tip weights inserted somewhere, so I disassempbed two of the clubs - nothing. Plus I cross-referenced the static weights against someone else´s identical set - maybe 2-3g difference, most being 5g difference, so given the age of those clubs (1998-2000), well within ´tolerance range´.
The excessive swingweight is the 1-inch, alluminium extender.

Also thought the 710MBs were fakes. Did the same thing, took apart the 6-iron, weight the clubhead (257g), checked ok for magnetism, then checked shaft weight - this is where the alarm bells started: Project X 6.0 shaft (raw length is 38.5 inches) and weighs 120g.
Shaft of this 6-iron is  110g and 36.02” (91.5cm) - significantly lighter and shorted, suggesting extensive trimming.
Or fake.
Given that this has subsequently had a 0.8” extender inserted at the butt-end and still registered D1.5 means the shaft has been trimmed 1” at both ends

[Excelsior75]

4 hours ago, gdb99 said:

Why do you think he trimmed the shafts at both ends? The heads should be taper tip. 

Possibly  to achieve a shorter, more comfortable club length for better control, consistency and/or had a very fast swing or desired a lower, more penetrating ball flight, common with Project X 6.0 shafts (which are already stiff, 310–320 CPM).
Tip trimming increases stiffness, reducing flex and spin.

[Excelsior75]

4 hours ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Are you asking why the SW are so different?   Or why you hit them both fine despite being so different?

 

As far as why the swing weights are so different,  there are just too many unknown variables to say for sure.   Lot's of possibilities - some important - some not so much.

 

What are the actual measured (not just the published length specs) playing lengths before and after extending (e.g. just 7i or 5i length is fine)?   

What are the total club static weights (again just 7i or 5i is fine)?

What were the swing weights before extending?

What specific extension were used in each?   Were both sets extended by the same tech at the same time?

What grips - and are they the same on both clubs?

What did the tech's do (if anything) to try and manage the swing weight when the extensions were added?

 

 

As far as why the different swing weights doesn't seem to be effecting performance that much:

 

1)  Some people are just more or less sensitive to swing weight (or really MOI or head weight) changes.

2) Swing weight was intended as a proxy for MOI - but there are a lot of things that can effect the swing weight scale reading that don't really effect the MOI e.g.  like grip weight or added butt weight.   So the difference in swing weight values is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the MOI differences in the clubs.   You'd need to put them on an actual MOI measuring device to see that.

 

 

 

 

I was thinking the same - but would mean that the one with 'b' weight heads likely came out of the factory over length and the other set didn't.   I'm guessing the different extension amounts were to get both sets to the same length.  But that's just speculation.

 

 

 

Yes – its baffling. My swing is sound but I though such opposite ends of swing-weight scale might be more affecting to me.
But, apples to oranges aside, it doesnt/hasnt affected my game at all.
Im aware the 681s required a more rythmic swing as opposed to the quick transition at P4-P5 with the 710MBs - I can adapt to that no problem.

[Stuart_G]

11 minutes ago, Excelsior75 said:

Given that this has subsequently had a 0.8” extender inserted at the butt-end and still registered D1.5 means the shaft has been trimmed 1” at both ends

 

The swing weight or total weight or total length doesn't really tell you anything about what end was trimmed.   The only way to do that is to get the length from the tip to the first step and compare that against a shaft that is known not to have been stepped.

 

 

Edited May 30 by Stuart_G

[Howard_Jones]

8 minutes ago, Excelsior75 said:

Originally, I thought a) 681s had tip weights inserted somewhere, so I disassempbed two of the clubs - nothing. Plus I cross-referenced the static weights against someone else´s identical set - maybe 2-3g difference, most being 5g difference, so given the age of those clubs (1998-2000), well within ´tolerance range´.
The excessive swingweight is the 1-inch, alluminium extender.

Also thought the 710MBs were fakes. Did the same thing, took apart the 6-iron, weight the clubhead (257g), checked ok for magnetism, then checked shaft weight - this is where the alarm bells started: Project X 6.0 shaft (raw length is 38.5 inches) and weighs 120g.
Shaft of this 6-iron is  110g and 36.02” (91.5cm) - significantly lighter and shorted, suggesting extensive trimming.
Or fake.
Given that this has subsequently had a 0.8” extender inserted at the butt-end and still registered D1.5 means the shaft has been trimmed 1” at both ends

 

 

110 grams / 36 inch = 3.05 pr inch

A PX #6 iron shaft is 39 long uncut

39 x 3.05= 119 grams uncut

 

Nothing wrong with that for a PX 6.0

 

[Excelsior75]

6 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

The swing weight or total weight or total length doesn't really tell you anything about what end was trimmed.   The only way to do that is to get the length from the tip to the first step and compare that against a shaft that is known not to have been stepped.

 

 

Partially correct but oversimplifies the situation.
While these metrics alone don’t directly identify the trimmed end, they provide indirect evidence when combined with other data (e.g., shaft weight, flex feel, and expected characteristics). The suggestion to measure the tip-to-first-step length is ideal for stepped shafts (e.g., Dynamic Gold S300 in my 681 PW) but less applicable to stepless shafts like the Project X 6.0, which lack distinct steps.

The 10-15g weight loss (100g base vs. 120-125g uncut), stiffer flex (6.5–7.0), short base length (e.g., 6-iron at 35.15”), and low swing weights (C8–D1, e.g., 9-iron at C8) strongly indicate dual-end trimming (0.5–1” tip, ~1–1.5” butt).

Butt-only trimming would yield a heavier shaft (~112–117g) and stock 6.0 flex, which is inconsistent with the given data.
 

0.800” extenders suggest post-trimming length adjustment, reinforcing butt trimming.
While direct measurement (e.g., flex or tip inspection) would confirm tip trimming, the combined evidence—weight, length, flex, and swing weight—supports the analysis.

[Stuart_G]

11 minutes ago, Excelsior75 said:

Partially correct but oversimplifies the situation.
While these metrics alone don’t directly identify the trimmed end, they provide indirect evidence when combined with other data (e.g., shaft weight, flex feel, and expected characteristics).

 

But not conclusive evidence.   And no, shaft weight data is not useful evidence.  
Regardless, the best it can do is make you suspicious that it might be a possibility.

 

11 minutes ago, Excelsior75 said:

The suggestion to measure the tip-to-first-step length is ideal for stepped shafts (e.g., Dynamic Gold S300 in my 681 PW) but less applicable to stepless shafts like the Project X 6.0, which lack distinct steps.

 

But they do have graphics that can be used as a reference point instead - which is what is done all the time with graphite shafts to check if they've been tipped.

 

For taper tip steel shafts, you can also measure the tip size when it's been pulled.  If it's still ~.355", it definitely hasn't been tipped. 

 

Also, some PX shafts previously came in both .355" and discrete CW .370" tips - so you have to really know it was a taper tip shaft.    So even if you know they are discrete length CW weight shafts - you don't necessarily know they were taper tip shafts.

Edited May 30 by Stuart_G

[Excelsior75]

13 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

 

 

110 grams / 36 inch = 3.05 pr inch

A PX #6 iron shaft is 39 long uncut

39 x 3.05= 119 grams uncut

 

Nothing wrong with that for a PX 6.0

 

Are referring to parallel tip blanks?
Taper tip shafts are club-specific lengths, and the 6-iron is 37.0"

Sorry, should have clarified mine are taper

[Excelsior75]

So, the shafts might be fakes if tip-end is still .355 - this suggests it hasnt been trimmed   😃

[Howard_Jones]

13 minutes ago, Excelsior75 said:

Are referring to parallel tip blanks?
Taper tip shafts are club-specific lengths, and the 6-iron is 37.0"

Sorry, should have clarified mine are taper

 

The numbers is the same for both tip models in PX, they are both constant wgt.

 

The shortest PX shaft is the PW, and that shaft is 37.00 uncut. The others is progressive 0.5 longer

 

PW = 37

#9 = 37.50

#8 = 38.00

#7 = 38.50

#6 = 39.00

Edited May 30 by Howard_Jones

[Stuart_G]

11 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

The numbers is the same for both tip models in PX, they are both constant wgt.

 

Not any more:

https://www.truetempersports.com/en-us/golf/project-x-steel-iron-golf-shaft.html#

 

 

[Excelsior75]

10 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

 

The numbers is the same for both tip models in PX, they are both constant wgt.

Constant weight but not constant, raw length, correct?
PX 6.0 shafts are pre-cut to length for each iron but are not tip-trimmed? Only the butt end is trimmed to achieve the desired playing length. This design maintains a constant weight across the set, ´typically´ around 120g for the 6.0 flex.

Maybe mine are Project X LZ 5.5´s with 6.0s labels?

[Excelsior75]

BTW all, I appreciate the detective work!

[Howard_Jones]

17 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Not any more:

https://www.truetempersports.com/en-us/golf/project-x-steel-iron-golf-shaft.html#

 

 

If the shafts came with the actual heads, they was.

[Howard_Jones]

21 minutes ago, Excelsior75 said:

Constant weight but not constant, raw length, correct?
PX 6.0 shafts are pre-cut to length for each iron but are not tip-trimmed? Only the butt end is trimmed to achieve the desired playing length. This design maintains a constant weight across the set, ´typically´ around 120g for the 6.0 flex.

Maybe mine are Project X LZ 5.5´s with 6.0s labels?

Sorry but your knowledge is at such a level, you look like trolling.

 

Weight specs is always UNCUT, so they DONT stay at 120 grams when cut to play lenght, but constant wgt shafts will remains EQUAL to eachother, but by nature, no longer the weight it had as uncut.

 

Depending on BBGM and how the actual OEM measure play length, PX  will be cut plus minus 2.75 inches down to standard play lenght.

Edited May 30 by Howard_Jones

[Excelsior75]

3 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Sorry but your knowledge is at such a level, you look like trolling.

 

Weight specs is always UNCUT, so they DONT stay at 120 grams when cut to play lenght, but constant wgt shafts will remains EQUAL to eachother, but by nature, no longer the weight it had as uncut.

You mean someone questioning your interpretation is now trolling? 
 

I understand your points —  listed shaft weights (like “120g”) refer to the uncut/raw shaft. Once you trim — especially at both ends — the actual installed weight decreases.
No debate there.
 

But the key point here is how constant weight shafts (like Dynamic Gold, Project X, etc.) are engineered to behave across the set, and that’s where the real-world application comes in.

Even though trimmed shafts lose some mass, the trimming is incremental (more from longer irons, less from short), and this is by design — so that each installed shaft ends up with very similar weight, typically within a gram or two. That’s what makes them constant weight.

So when clubmakers refer to Dynamic Gold S300 as a "120g shaft," they’re not saying every trimmed shaft literally weighs exactly 120.0g once installed. What they’re saying is: “this set is designed to perform like a group of shafts that each play at ~120g.”

From a purely technical spec standpoint, you're correct. But from a practical clubbuilding perspective, it’s the consistent playing characteristics that matter most.

So maybe the takeaway is this: one of us is focusing on the technical semantics of uncut spec sheets, and the other is speaking from a builder’s viewpoint — real-world logic where constant weight = constant feel and balance throughout the set, not constant raw grams.

Fair summary?

[Stuart_G]

16 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

If the shafts came with the actual heads, they was.

 

I get the impression that the history of these clubs and shafts is not that well understood to guarantee anything about them.

[Excelsior75]

5 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

I get the impression that the history of these clubs and shafts is not that well understood to guarantee anything about them.

Which is undenaibly true.
Im not even trying to win  anything — just aligning practical understanding (what happens in real-world builds) with the terminology used in the industry.
But, hypothetically, if that were to conflict with someone who’s used to being the “smartest guy in the room,” even querying an alternative perspective can feel like a confrontation.

[Howard_Jones]

14 hours ago, Excelsior75 said:

You mean someone questioning your interpretation is now trolling? 
 

I understand your points —  listed shaft weights (like “120g”) refer to the uncut/raw shaft. Once you trim — especially at both ends — the actual installed weight decreases.
No debate there.
 

But the key point here is how constant weight shafts (like Dynamic Gold, Project X, etc.) are engineered to behave across the set, and that’s where the real-world application comes in.

Even though trimmed shafts lose some mass, the trimming is incremental (more from longer irons, less from short), and this is by design — so that each installed shaft ends up with very similar weight, typically within a gram or two. That’s what makes them constant weight.

So when clubmakers refer to Dynamic Gold S300 as a "120g shaft," they’re not saying every trimmed shaft literally weighs exactly 120.0g once installed. What they’re saying is: “this set is designed to perform like a group of shafts that each play at ~120g.”

From a purely technical spec standpoint, you're correct. But from a practical clubbuilding perspective, it’s the consistent playing characteristics that matter most.

So maybe the takeaway is this: one of us is focusing on the technical semantics of uncut spec sheets, and the other is speaking from a builder’s viewpoint — real-world logic where constant weight = constant feel and balance throughout the set, not constant raw grams.

Fair summary?

Not even close...

 

Constant wgt shafts comes in discrete lenghts, but equal weight. Thats due to progressive shaft wall thickness. When we butt cutt to play length, we cut the same lenght from the butt on all, to remain 0.5" PL Difference.

 

The butt side cut off has the same weight on 3 to PW, so they remain constant wgt, now with a weight loss equal to the average grams per inch in the set.(for estimates, some shaft models has a light butt side, others might be "heavy"), but equal fro 3 to PW in the set.

 

Descending wgt models is "1 blank for all" so they will installed have progressive lower shaft wgt, for each club shorter. On those shafts we start with tip trim ,(unless they come pre-cut tip side), then we butt trim the same amount from all down to play lenght.

 

120 grams uncut, means nothing else than that, and those values is most often NOT compatible with other shaft models, since there is no common standards for how long they are uncut.

 

As example, PX STANDARD model, comes as 0.5 longer than DG, so PX 6.0 at 120 grams vs DG 120 grams is NOT the same weight installed. PX will need 0.5 more butt cut than DG, and by that it will be 1.6 to 1.7 grams lighter than DG when installed.

 

But if we look at PX LZ, they have the same uncut lengths as DG is using, so its all a big mess, but the specs we see on the manufactorers web page, is always as uncut, unless other is specified.

 

Thats why we need to go by grams pr.inch to make a apple to apple compare of different shaft models, and also to make a estimate of net. Cut wgt.

Edited May 31 by Howard_Jones

[Excelsior75]

3 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

Not even close...

 

Constant wgt shafts comes in discrete lenghts, but equal weight. Thats due to progressive shaft wall thickness. When we butt cutt to play length, we cut the same lenght from the butt on all, to remain 0.5" PL Difference.

 

Descending wgt models is "1 blank for all" so they will installed have progressive lower shaft wgt, for each club shorter. On those shafts we start with tip trim ,(unless they come pre-cut tip side), then we butt trim the same amount from all down to play lenght.

 

120 grams uncut, means nothing else than that, and those values is most often NOT compatible with other shaft models, since there is no common standards for how long they are uncut.

 

As example, PX STANDARD model, comes as 0.5 longer than DG, so PX 6.0 at 120 grams vs DG 120 grams is NOT the same weight installed. PX will need 0.5 more butt cut than DG, and by that it will be 1.6 to 1.7 grams lighter than DG when installed.

 

But if we look at PX LZ, they have the same uncut lengths as DG is using, so its all a big mess, but the specs we see on the manufactorers web page, is always as uncut, unless other is specified.

 

Thats why we need to go by grams pr.inch to make a apple to apple compare of different shaft models, and also to make a estimate of net. Cut lenght.

THIS is what Im talking about - thanks for your reply.
 

Thanks for the detailed explanation — I  appreciate the clarification on how constant weight and descending weight shafts differ in terms of length, trimming, and weight distribution. Your points about progressive wall thickness and trimming strategy  highlight the complexity behind shaft specs.
 

I get that uncut shaft specs alone don’t tell the full story, especially when different models have varying uncut lengths and trimming protocols — that’s something I hadn’t fully accounted for. My bad.
 

Grams-per-inch and net cut length are key metrics for real apples-to-apples comparisons — good to keep those in mind.
 

At the same time, from a practical fitting and playing perspective, what really matters is how the final installed shafts perform as a set — and for constant weight shafts like, say DG S300, the goal remains to have the set feel consistent despite slight installed weight variances.
 

So I guess it’s a balance between the manufacturing technicalities and the real-world feel and performance on the course.
 

Thanks again for your insight — I’ll definitely keep your points in mind as I work on adjusting my clubs!

[Howard_Jones]

31 minutes ago, Excelsior75 said:

THIS is what Im talking about - thanks for your reply.
 

Thanks for the detailed explanation — I  appreciate the clarification on how constant weight and descending weight shafts differ in terms of length, trimming, and weight distribution. Your points about progressive wall thickness and trimming strategy  highlight the complexity behind shaft specs.
 

I get that uncut shaft specs alone don’t tell the full story, especially when different models have varying uncut lengths and trimming protocols — that’s something I hadn’t fully accounted for. My bad.
 

Grams-per-inch and net cut length are key metrics for real apples-to-apples comparisons — good to keep those in mind.
 

At the same time, from a practical fitting and playing perspective, what really matters is how the final installed shafts perform as a set — and for constant weight shafts like, say DG S300, the goal remains to have the set feel consistent despite slight installed weight variances.
 

So I guess it’s a balance between the manufacturing technicalities and the real-world feel and performance on the course.
 

Thanks again for your insight — I’ll definitely keep your points in mind as I work on adjusting my clubs!

 

Yes, when we make a reference to shaft wgt, we always talk uncut, even if reality is, NOBODY PLAYS 130 grams iron shafts, they will in play be about 120 to 122 grams (as standard PL), but we still say its 130 gram shafts.

 

Look at this chart. But dont get a headacke now. Its different DESCENDING wgt shafts, sorted by grams pr.inch so we are able to see what they really are vs other models.

 

When you now look into each shaft in the set, i have used grams per inch x "DG const.wgt UNCUT lenght" so we get a idea of what constant wgt we have in each club, still as "uncut" to be able to have a apple to apple compare.

 

One of the most popular descending wgt shafts in the history of Golf was RIFLE FCM, and since the factory model started as 44.00 long for irons, weight specs seems absurd with 146 grams as 7.0 flex, but not when we have then tipped and only butt cutt is left, and length is equal to DG constant wgt uncut.

 

Then the #3 iron shaft, becomes "only" 125 grams...

 

Shaft weight is for this reason, about the most messy club spec of them all, and very easy to misjudge, unless we go by grams pr. Inch to see what they really are.

 

 

CONSTANT wgt shafts looks like this, where grams per inch goes up for each club shorter. (Progressive thicker shaft walls as they go shorter)

 

ALL SPECS IS WITH DG UNCUT LENGHTS AS BENCHMARK.

 

To compare with PX, look at values for 1 iron longer.

 

 

Colored fields is DG AMT or ascending mass shafts

Edited May 30 by Howard_Jones

[Socrates]

Without the clubs in one's hands and seeing what is what, most of this is speculative.  To be certain of what is going on, one needs to see the components hands-on so that one is not guessing.  The OP has a lot of knowledge and has them right in front of him and is the best person to tell what is what.  To me, the OP seems to be wanting someone to "guess" at what is what when that is really hard to do from a keyboard.  High res pictures of the shafts and heads would go a long way to "solving" the issue.

[Excelsior75]

36 minutes ago, Howard_Jones said:

 

Yes, when we make a reference to shaft wgt, we always talk uncut, even if reality is, NOBODY PLAYS 130 grams iron shafts, they will in play be about 120 to 122 grams (as standard PL), but we still say its 130 gram shafts.

 

Look at this chart. But dont get a headacke now. Its different DESCENDING wgt shafts, sorted by grams pr.inch so we are able to see what they really are vs other models.

 

When you now look into each shaft in the set, i have used grams per inch x "DG const.wgt UNCUT lenght" so we get a idea of what constant wgt we have in each club, still as "uncut" to be able to have a apple to apple compare.

 

One of the most popular descending wgt shafts in the history of Golf was RIFLE FCM, and since the factory model started as 44.00 long for irons, weight specs seems absurd with 146 grams as 7.0 flex, but not when we have then tipped and only butt cutt is left, and length is equal to DG constant wgt uncut.

 

Then the #3 iron shaft, becomes "only" 125 grams...

 

Shaft weight is for this reason, about the most messy club spec of them all, and very easy to misjudge, unless we go by grams pr. Inch to see what they really are.

 

 

CONSTANT wgt shafts looks like this, where grams per inch goes up for each club shorter. (Progressive thicker shaft walls as they go shorter)

 

ALL SPECS IS WITH DG UNCUT LENGHTS AS BENCHMARK.

 

To compare with PX, look at values for 1 iron longer.

 

 

Colored fields is DG AMT or ascending mass shafts

Great - that makes 100% sense - and why my disassembled 681 pitching-wedge DG S300 shaft weighs 120g

[Excelsior75]

9 hours ago, Howard_Jones said:

 

It sounds like one set with standard wgt heads. The other with B weight (down 7 grams), plus higher grip wgt on the set with B wgt heads, who pull the scale a trick.

 

If actual play length is 0.5" apart, 3 SWP comes from PL difference, so you have to check actual PL and total wgt to see where the difference comes from, so with grip model and wgt.

Could you clarify terminology here:
* B weight
* pull the scale a trick
* 3 SWP
* PL difference

[Howard_Jones]

Some but far from all OEMs offer B Weight heads thats 7 grams down vs standard. That way clubs who has say D2 at standard PL (Play lenght), can be delivered with  D2 as SW value also at plus 0.5" vs standard.

 

O.5" inch longer (or shorter), moves SW value with 3 SWP.

 

SW values should only be judged using a standard grip thsts 50-52 grams.

If we use a 60 gram grip, the scale will return a value thats 2 SWP lower, even if we did nothing to head wgt, and thats what its all about.

[Pepperturbo]

18 hours ago, Excelsior75 said:

I am currently, alternating/gaming two sets of used, now-customized irons:

• Titleist 681  (DGS300)
• Titleist 710MB  (Project X 6.0)

Both sets have been extended by 1” and 0.5” (681s ad 710s respectively)

So, now:
Swingweight for the 681: between D5-D8
Swingweight for the 710MB: C8-D2

Why is this?  Golf-technician messed up the extensions, wrong way-around.
(Plus, seems like 710MBs shafts have been trimmed 1” but equally at both ends.)

I hit both sets of irons fine.
Distance/dispersion is not that variable.


Why is this?

My 2cents difference has to do with the feel of very different shaft profiles in different weight heads, and maybe the 710MB setup wasn't properly built.  They should NOT be C8 and extending 1" can change how each set feels.

 

When PX 6.0 120g shafts were put in 620 MBs, + grip they were D3 without help at standard Titleist 620 length.  I played PX 6.0 for 15+yrs, in two different heads, last being 620 MB heads.  Haven't played S300 shafts since the late 90s, then switched to X100, to 6.5 before 6.0.