Equal Length Iron Set

Can we make them?

Right, here is goal:-

set of irons made to one length where all things are equal except for loft.

What needs to happen:-

Decide on optimum length - relatively easy to get pretty close to an answer here. You can go by static measurement alone or a dynamic fit. I know that mine is going to be about 38 inches, which would put it at just slightly less than my current 6 iron. But for overall accuracy then a dynamic fit, someone like Shaun(Exmax) can do this, where your 9 o'clock shaft angle is measured, is required.

Lie angle - based on your shaft length and posture then the lie angle is decided on the dynamic fit. Cranking lie angles on a set of iron to match is fairly straightforward but nuch easier with softer metal.

Decide on optimum head weight - sets range from about 240 grammes on 3 iron to 300 grammes on sw. Each half inch increment in shaft length seems to require a 7-10 gramme reduction in headweight to keep the feel the same. Based on mt assessment aroundmy 6 iron then I'd be looking at matching weights around the 262 gramme mark.

continued on next post.........

Okay so I want to make a set of irons at 38 inches, shafts trimmed as per 6 iron, all headweights at 262 grammes and lie angles at 62 degrees. Sounds pretty easy yeah? NO, now your problems really start:-1. shafts - no problem2. lie angle - no problem, particularly if using fairly soft/forged heads, you won't be shifting the lie angle more than about 3 degrees max.3. head weights - massive problem, how do you add in or subtract enough weight, without altering playing characteristics or damaging clubhead integrity?Shaun has been super helpful to me in this and has systematically shot down every 'good' idea I've had. For some reason I thought that my few days of musings were going to produce solutions that his decades of experience hadn't already tried and discarded(yep I can be that dense). So to save you all hitting dead ends here are the thoughts so far:-buy a set of heads of equal weight - only a couple available and they are truly ugly and probably not very moveable if you need to tinkerbuy a set of heads with weight ports - a few options but again not too pretty and the weight ports do not allow for enough variancecustomise your own - adding in weight is feasible in a combination of hosel plugs and lead tape(amazing how much you would need for 20 grammes) but very hard to keep the playing characteristics. Removing that sort of weight is even harder, 30 grammes off a wedge is a huge chunk of metal. Grinding is the best option but you need to watch for bounce etc.Then I thought of buying multiples of the same head and cranking the lofts. However this is only good for about 2 degrees and most loft spreads are between 3 and 5.So my best solution at present is to make a set in 2 groupings. Equal length 3,4,5,6, based around the 6 iron but using a combination of hosel weight and shaft weight to get the match. Up to 10 grammes can be done via hosel plugs so this should cover the 4 and 5 iron. Then 3 iron could be done via hosel plug, slightly lighter shaft or leaving an extra 1/2 inch on it. Next I look at the 7 to SW, now a combination based around the 9 iron might work here, bring 7 and 8 weights up as above and dealing with PW, AW and SW via grinding and maybe a heavier shaft.So come on folks any budding geniuses out there?

I've never heard of hosel plugs but wouldn't they put the extra weight in too small an area when it should be spread across the whole head for balance? I've been mucking about with an Adams driver I bought and was staggered how much I noticed the 12g weight when it was in the heel port.

Sean yes, the hosel plug is not ideal but, additional heel weighting will tend to promote a draw shape. As I currently play a fade I figured I could probably get away with this. If you are a drawer of the ball then this route would probably lead to hooks.Also 10 grammes of weight into the hosel of a 3 iron is only 4% of the total headweight so it shouldn't have too dramatic an impact.

Typical weight difference between 3 and AW is 40-50g. SW is usually 8-10g heavier that the PW/AW.You can get hosel weights and shaft weights up to 10g each, so you are less than halfway there.The only options seem to be:1. Find a set of irons that have a relatively long hosel but short shafting depth, and then gradually bore out the hosel below the normal shafting depth (for the 7-SW). Remember that there is already some vacant space below the bottom of the hosel-shaft recess (i.e. where the hosel weight fits) so you aren't going to be removing much metal to begin with.2. Use a set of irons such as the TM RAc series. Remove the weight cartridges and play with placing different weight into the vacted space. 3. Get a set with a very deep cavity back. This gives maximum material potential for removing weight, or even welding weight down into the cavity.4. Try the SnakeEyes Viper Ti-4 series. Great quality, hi-tech (Ti face) and has adjustable weighting. With two 12g weights in the head and a 10g weight in the shaft, that = +34g. Remove all weights AND bore out the hosel (no weight recess, so maximum weight removed for minimum depth of boring) and you should be able to get 10-15g out no prob. That = 50g difference across the entire set - target achieved. Except for that SW, so might need go over-baord on the hosel bore or try a specific head (other type/make)

Andrew, some good thoughts there, some I'd thought of some I hadn't, and my final solution utilises a lot of your thoughts. Looked at many clubheads on offer, don't like any of the weight port ones. Have decided the easiest way forward is to make a 2 part set with the 3-6 iron matched and then the 7-SW matched.So I've decided on the Golfsmith Tour Cavity Forged clubheads. These come with the extended hosel where, below the shaft insertion depth, you can insert up to a 10 gramme weight. The makers specifications also indicate that these are designed to allow for up to a 3 degree crank in both loft and lie angles. Plus being forged future tinkering is not going to be a no-no. Here is how I plan to work the set:-3 iron = 4 iron head, cranked closed from 24 to 21 degrees, lie angle up from 59 to 62 and head weight increased from 247 to 261. Tricky bit is the extra 4 grammes over the 10 gramme hosel port weight, but reckon is achievable.4 iron = 5 iron head cranked closed from 28 to 25 degrees, lie angle up from 60 to 62 weight up from 254 to 261.5 iron = 6 iron head cranked closed from 32 to 29 degrees, lie angle up from 61 to 62 weight stays standard6 iron = 6 iron head, loft cranked open from 32 to 33 degrees lie angle up from 61 to 62 weight stays the same7 iron = 8 iron head, loft closed from 40 to 37 degrees, lie up from 63 to 64, weight up from 275 to 289, again an extra 4 grammes to add.8 iron = 9 iron head, loft closed from 44 to 41 degrees, lie stays same and weight up from 282 to 2899 iron = PW head, loft closed from 48 to 45 degrees, lie stays same, weight stays the samePW = PW head, loft opened from 48 to 49 degrees, lie and weight stay sameAW = AW head, loft open from 52 to 53 degrees, lie and weight left as is, though head is 5 grammes moreSW = SW head, loft open from 56 to 57 degrees, lie and weight left as is, weight is 11 grammes more than wedge.These will be fitted with S300 shafts, 4 trimmed to my 6 iron specs and 6 trimmed to my PW specs. I'm going to spend a bit of time making sure that I'm really happy with the intended shaft lengths before finalising. But at present I'm looking at a floor to butt, parallel measurement, for the 6 iron as being 38 inches and for the wedge as being 36.5 inches.I'm waiting to hear back from Golfsmith on a recommended retailer/clubmaker in my area.

For any of the irons, you can add both hosel and shaft tip weight. So should be no prob for the extra 4g in the 3=4 irons.If GolfSmith don't come up with a club-maker who you are happy with, then virtually all club-makers can supply GolfSmith/SnakeEyes parts. (I.e. you don't have to stick with one that GS recommends. Most club-makers will have accounts with GS and so can get the head sets). Sounds like a great winter project. Look forward to reading the review.

cant you add weight at the butt end to balance swingweight...similar to what Heavy Putter do?youll end up with clubs that are individually heavy in terms of mass but balanced far more easily than messing about with extra/less weight in the head.But as you say...Shaun probably allready knows why this wouldnt work!!!

did look at that Nick and there are even 'butt plugs', excuse the term, available on Golfsmith. There is also an arguement that you don't even have to add weight to the heads at all. I just felt that, as the possibility to match existed, and the weight plugs are cheap, then why not.There are lots of other ways of matching, invvolving shaft weights, butt weighting, shaft flex. But I was trying to keep it simple.

What would happen if you didn't add weight to the heads and just did the other tweaks? Or even just shafted the 3-6 the same and the 7-SW the same and left the heads completely as they were (lie angle excepted)?

Good question Sean, I suspect that the feel variance would be pronounced. But with a combination of hosel plug and tip weight it is possible to add in about 20 grammes. So could do the 3-6 without cranking lofts and just altering lie angles. Another thing for me to think about!

Sorry but could I ask why you're doing all this? Apologies if you've already given your reasons!

One of the major manufacturers had this idea some years ago. If I remember right, they were all the length of a 6 iron.Self evidently the concept was not a success...

Wasn't it Tiger Shark? - I don't think they were all the same length but stepped about 1/4" between each club instead of 1/2"

Its an interesting idea and concept, but I can't see that its viable. The greatest differentiate between carrying distance of clubs is shaft length, not loft. To compensate for the shafts being the same length you'd need to tweak the lofts to such extremes the long irons and wedges would be unhittable. Irons and wedges are scoring clubs where you land the ball and stop it. A 7* loft 3 iron, for example, isnt gonna be much use, nor is a 75* wedge.You might as well just carry a single 6 iron, close it and deloft it for longer shots and open it up for higher shots.

it does work creo length is a variable relative to headweight only so length on its own wont give such big differences.you dont have to touch the lofts any more than in a conventional set tolleranceconcepts only work with mass marketing and tour success, and as ive mentioned before many players use 3 sets of 3 or up to 5 clubs the same lengthtiger shark idea was similar,tommy armour with the eq irons too but most only have part of the equation.i dont believe in the clubs bieng equal for that sake alone, but i believe that no club should be shorter than your optimum body posture.reason why most good players bad shot is a pull with a short iron

Creo, you have made the exact classic assumption error that myself, and most others, have. It is the loft that supplies the distance variance and not the shaft length. I have done the maths based around the rotational speed at the outside of a circle. If you imagine the second hand of a watch as the radius sweeping round a circle. Obviously the outer end is moving at the highest speed. Based on this if you calculate the rate the arm is moving at 1/2 an inch short of the edge then you see a reduction of 0.745%. This is a constant and I have tested based on a variety of swingspeeds.For example take a high 6 iron swing speed of 90 mph and apply an increase of 2.235% for the additional 1.5 inches of a 3 iron. This would give you an additional 2 mph of clubhead speed. Allowing for very generous mph to carry in yards conversion, this is contributing a maximum of 5 yards of carry. IMHO, if you then factor the better quality of strike and accuracy at 6 iron length then, the extra 1.5 inches probably contributes nothing.

I would had thought a post on bombsquads club makers forum would yeild some very sage advice.

yep, that's me Chimp, and there's also one on golfopinions.com. I'm actually trying to find some science that supports the way the iron sets are varied in length, I've had no joy yet on the web.

It was not only T Shark & Tommy Armour who played about with this concept, I had a set of Wilson irons in the 90s (maybe 80s:-)) which had weighted butts, can't for the life of me remember why, but have a vague memory that the clubs arose from a study carried out by Edinburgh Uni; may be a source of info MB?

moi matching example - problem is they used 1 basic model.to match to each player requires their own moi fitting parametres.Swingweight, moi and frequency matching will all give different feel and resultsSo out of say 100 people maybe 1 would like the feel of that particular matched set

If it was that simple, one of the major manufacturers would have built a set like this already.The problem you will inevitably have is clubhead speed with each iron. The longer the shaft, the more speed it produces - centrifugal force. If you set up your irons like a 6-iron, you'll hit it six iron length much of the time, just on lower trajectories than you're used to. it certainly won't give you optimal ball flight, lift, drag, spin characteristics and launch angle, even if you do find a set of heads with different weights as you want.Swingweights should be very similar in a set but with this set, you would need to adjust swingweights a hell of a lot to get anywhere near what you need. Also, lofts and lies need to really be cranked around. This is not good for the integrity of the clubhead itself, especially if it is a forged head. it will tend to weaken too much once it's bent - think of forged metal a bit like wood. It has grain, like wood and is easily weakened.As a qualified club maker and fitter, I would leave this well alone - sounds like a fun experiement, but I doubt it will work.Too much information to give in one posting, but the bottom line is - go and get yourslef professionally fitted with the club of your choice - it's that simple.Apart from that mad idea, how's your golf anyway Al?

most companies wont, not because they cant, but because its too costly in time and variables.clubhead speed in this set up will not alter the distances dramatically - in some cases they will go up.trajectory is normally higher too especially on the higher lofted ironsswingweights can also be matched, as can the overall weight match too which you dont get in a normal matched setplus minus 3 deg is really all thats required in most cases loft wont need adjusting more than 2 so bounce should be ok as well in most models.it is a fun experiment one that i have played with for 20 yrs and yes it does work lol

I'm all for breaking away with tradition, but this is taking it too far - I'd like to try and set of clubs like this and see the results - any chance you can get your full set on a launch monitor and post teh results of clubhead speed, launch angle, spin rates? Now that would be interesting to read.Put them ina comparison to a standard set of irons and I'd love to kow the differences.As for higher trajectory in short irons, that's reasonable as the club speed would be higher and added to lots of loft, it has to go higher. But in long irons, surely they would go lower and shorter.

might be worth a shot, when i get some free time i will look into it.i normally work on the shot pattern spread and distance consistancy rather than spin launch club speed etc - hard part for me will be using variable length,and weight irons lol in the standard set (as there are no industry standards)and im not used to playing shots from a un balanced manufactured position club speed with single length is the same throughout the set ,and only goes up marginally against a standard club on high lofted irons,due to the headweight reduction from a conventional club, but because the posture is not compressed, the cog of the person is not forward and the swing shaft angle is flatter relative to a normal spec high loft iron, you achieve more height and a more consistant shot pattern.the longer clubs usually fall into this scenario for most peopleis it better to have a longer club than you can manage and produce a slapshot - or make it shorter increase the headweight, improve the strike conditions, increasing the ball speed but lowering the overall flash speed.the second scenario will always create better consistancy and in most cases better distance and control.Everyone has a club that fits their optimum posture - if asked to create a balanced athletic swing position without a club , most would be suprised where their hands would actually be relative to club length My only belief is that no club should be made that is shorter than this balanced position

When I come back from GolfSmith in a couple of weeks, I might make a set, too - I'll post results if I have the time to build them during the winter. I'll speak to Neil Cooke and see what he thinks, too.You never know, we could be onto something big here!! LOL.

Pass on my regards to Neil, we go back a long way, when he used to work for Lamkin, Dougs a nice guy too.Are you working on a course at Golfsmith?Im not sure any of the oem boys would be interested ha ha it complicates the sale too much

Latest update:-Parky - a simple mathematical formula can be used to calculate how much difference 1/2 an inch of shaft length makes to clubhead speed. If you imagine a second hand moving around a clock face. Then calculate the speed of the tip and the speed at 1/2 inch from tip. I have run it for a variety of scenarios and the result is static at 0.745% variance per 1/2 inch. So this would be a loss of 2.235% of your clubhead speed by shafting a 3 iron 1.5 inches shorter at 6 iron length. Also remember that these calcs are only based on centre hits. Plus your 3 iron would be weighted up so the additional mass would offset some of the MPH loss. I really don't mind if I curtail my long iron distance gaps slightly if I get the expected level of improvement in accuracy and strike quality. Also remember that I play irons at plus 1 inch anyway. So if these are all shafted to my current 6 iron then, in reality, they will be playing at stock 4 iron length but weighted for 6 iron. So the swingweights should be high and the S300 shafts should play between an S and R flex.Clubs - I had to shelve the heads from Golfsmith idea as they were going to pan out too expensive in the UK. So I have bought a set of TM RAC TP 2005 forged cavities 3-PW. I am then taking the following steps:-1. pull shaft from 6 iron and weigh the head, then shaft 6 iron to desired specs and test. Re-shaft/tinker until totally happy with 6 iron, including lie angle.2. alter lie angle on 3, 4 and 5 iron to match angle of 6 iron.3. pull shafts from 3,4,5 irons and weigh heads to check variance from 6 iron head. Then use tip weights, hosel weights, tungsten powder and lead tape to get heads up to 6 iron weight.4. shaft 3,4,5 iron with same shaft, and same trimming, as the 6 iron. Will also spine/flo the shafts.5. give the 3-6 irons a full workout to see if distance spread has been maintained and idea has worked.6. if it worked then I will repeat the process based around the 9 or PW, depending on how these heads weigh. So will be bringing the weights up on the 7 & 8 iron heads. At the end of the day I'll learn from this experience, maybe waste a bit of money and definitely butcher a shiny set of RAC TP irons!

Think we should all have a whip round and contribute to the experiment!

Great idea Sean, I've set up a website to do just that:-afoolandhismoney.co.uknot sure if I'll get many takers though!I'll keep you all posted, I should begin work on the 6 iron this weekend. I've bought the set secondhand from the young assistant at my club. His new irons should be here tomorrow, so then I can begin the butchery of the old ones.

A fun experiment, but all to no avail, me thinks!Work on your short game more Al!!!!

Ah, a naysayer basing his naysaying on................tradition!!!!!!!!!I'm still searching on the web for any scientific evidence that explains why, through and iron set, you have a 1/2 inch increment in length offset by a 7 gramme reduction in headweight.Please feel free to enlighten me on why it's done this way.

Probably the same reason they discovered 'round' wheels all those years ago Al.... 'cos they workso why reinvent 'em?Mind you - I have been following this thread with interest and may have to eat my head if I'm wrong.

there is a co. in the states called 1irongolf.com which makes sets all one length also has a forum attached i think... might be worth a look... re nothing in particular did nt henry cotton have his irons all the same length?

There are many pros before and now who play with a number of clubs the same length within their sets.Many work on a 1/4 step, and other different configurations that arent the standard 1/2 ins length break.Many also fit different grip thickness on certain clubs to prevent or encourage a draw or fade - they also overly flatten some irons to prevent a pull All sorts of things Question everything, remember 95% of this game is marketing and bull****.In that split second of contact your golf ball doesnt know who or what it is bieng hit by

I thought that I would post an excerpt from an article I wrote a few years ago on club length versus distance. I hope that my posting here does not offend anyone, and I hope that this article provides a little food for thought on the subject.

Thanks David a great post,far better than i could have put it.My dad made clubs for over 45 yrs and i was taught to always challenge the standards in everything,to work out what works and why, and not just accept whats there and i know that the system works.If people thaught about it logically it becomes a simple choice imo - use a swing with multiple variables or use 1 with constantsI dont want to speak for the whole forum but i for one appreciate your post

Ok, nearly there guys, so a quick update:-Bought the TM CB TP irons, pulled shaft on 6 iron and weighed head. It was 261.5 grammes, hosels were taper tip so had to order 4 x 6 iron shafts. Fitted shaft to 6 iron and then butt trimmed to match my existing 6 which is 1 inch over, demoed to ensure I was happy with set up. Then pulled shafts on 3,4 & 5 iron and weighed heads, approx 7 gramme weight progression as expected. Added in additional weight via lead 'tip wates', basically little tubes of lead you glue into the tip of the shaft. Then we altered the lie angles to match the 6 iron. Finally repeated the above for the 7-PW based around 9 iron length and head weight, does mean the PW is slightly heavier, but only by about 5 grammes.So I now have a set where the 3-6 iron match my existing 6 iron at one inch over, so standard 4 iron length. My 7-PW match my existing 9 iron, again 1 inch over so standard 7 iron length.If this works then I'll be repeating the exercise with my RAC LT's. Should be easier as the hosels are parallel not taper. At this point I would probably put the TM CB's up for sale if someone else wants to try it. This experiment has cost me

I read with great interest keep up the hard work MacBludgeon.

Having read the whole thread, one thought occurs to me;If the consensus is that shaft length is a minor factor in distance, and if I can assume that the longer the shaft the more off centre hits there are......wouldn't you be better with all the clubs at the shortest reasonable shaft length, say an average PW?

No Tin Pot now read all the thread again you have no quite got it mate :)PThe idea or the proof if you will, there is normally one club in your bag that you can hit even when you are swinging bad, this club just happens to be dead on or very close to what would represent for you the ideal club length, weight, lie, moi etc (re-read thread) the idea is then you match all the other clubs in the bag around this club or effectively mirroring this clubs playing characteristics. It

Funnily enough...having recently sofstepped my irons I found myself with a 3iron head and a PW shaft left over.So...I stuck the shaft in the 3i head, added some weight to correct the swingweight and now have a short club that is ideal for chipping and bump and run shots.Tried it out down the range last night and found that after a little practice I could hit all manner of short chip shots AND some pretty accurate longer bump and run shots of around 60-80yards.Additionally, a solid 3/4 swing will still send the ball a good 160yds...albeit on a very low trajectory. Shot direction is very easy to control.Playing the ball forward with an open stance naturally gives some more height to the shot and the ball seems to check up quite well.Certainly gives some creedence to MacBludgeons experiment. I could certainly see that a 6 or 7 iron length 3iron would be immensely easy to hit with a higher degree of accuracy and only a marginal loss of distance.

TP it is as Chimp says I am aiming for an optimum club length. If done fully then I would end up with the whole set of irons at this length. I have decided to split the set purely because I couldn't think of a reliable way of removing enough weight from the short iron heads, whilst still leaving their integrity and playing characteristics intact. What I've ended up with is a set of 8 irons where the 3-6 are traditional 4 iron length and the 7-PW are traditional 7 iron length. However shaft tip options and headweights are based around the 6 and 9 iron.I'm still waiting to get on a launch monitor, am hoping to book a session for Sunday, and will then post up the full LM results.Also, same as Chimp, I have yet to find any scientific support for the 1/2 inch increase, and 7 gramme weight reduction, through a set of irons.

Frequently Asked QuestionsQ: Why are golf clubs made with different lengths?A: Quite frankly, it is because - that is how it has always been done. There is absolutely no mechanical basis for it.Is this not a compoent of how the kick point changes along the shaft as you tip trim?

OK folks, here goes with the update:-1. turned up for my LM session today and the guy was a no show, so no hard data to post.2. went to the local range and hit a couple of baskets of balls. Not ideal hitting rocks on a cold day, but needs must.3. took my normal irons, a standard set of RAC TP CB's and the new set adjusted to 2 lengths.4. I hit my normal irons better than either of the TP sets, no surprise there and never intended to make the TP's my gamer. However it did make assessment a little harder as the TP's are not forgiving once you get to the long irons.5. Standard TP's - hit them ok down to the 6 iron and then very hit and miss after that, with some true duffs amongst them.6. Adjusted TP's - same issues as with the standard but did not have any true duffs, can only put this down to the shaft length. Distance progression seemed pretty solid and could hit the 3,4,5 & 6 iron from tee or deck with equal ease. Mishits were better than the standard TP's but worse than with my gamer LT's.Conclusions - the expected benefits from ease of use and improved strike quality were evident. Enough so that I am going to proceed and make another set using LT heads. I have decided to make the new set in 3 lengths, matching the 3,4,5 then 6,7,8 and finally 9,PW,AW. This will minimise the amount of additional weight required and I think I can cope with 3 ball positions.

Been looking forward to this. Your dilligence and approach towards the task can only be commended mate. Pity about the LM no show but I favour it would only confirm what you already suspect.Hope the LT fabrication goes as well. Keep us posted.

cheers Chris, sorry I forgot to mention that the the standard TP set was also 1/2 an inch over normal on shaft length(belong to a mate of mine). When I said standard I meant they had the usual weight drop and 1/2 inch increment through the set.So my main comparison was done between the adjusted 3 iron and the standard 3 iron at plus 1/2 inch. So the specs for each club were:-Standard 3 = S300 taper tip shaft, trimmed for 3 iron and 1/2 inch extra left on butt end. Head weight left at standard 3 iron weight.Adjusted 3 = S300 taper tip shaft, trimmed for 6 iron, shaft 1 inch extra left at butt end and head weight increased by 20 grammes via tip weighting.Side by side there was negligible difference on good strikes between the 2 three irons. The overall average of each one showed a marked benefit from the adjusted club. This was due to the misses being less off centre and producing much better results than the other club. This was particularly evident when played off the deck, the extra inch of the standard TP definitely made quality of strike harder.However this was off a range mat with the

Ok, been a while but have finally off loaded the TP's(stuck the original shafts back in) and have sourced a set of the original RAC LT's to mess around with. However this time I will be starting slowly and have some new ideas. If I had just hit the TP's as they were then I wouldn't have spend all that money customising them as I would have know they weren't for me. So my new method:-1. vision this time is a 3 length set where I match 3,4,5 - 6,7,8 - and 9 to wedges.2. I'm going to try to do this without tip weighting as I felt this altered shaft and head playing characteristics.3. I will make up the new 3 iron using an S300 blank untipped(per 1 iron trim) and butt trimmed to my existing 5 iron length(equal to a standard 3 iron). The use of the 1 iron trim should negate the need for adding in 14 grammes of weight and leave the club playing at the same flex. The danger is that the 14 gramme swingweight reduction will be too noticeable and not allow the full benefits to come through. If this is the case then I may go with the lead tape method over tip weighting.4. will test the new 3 against my existing 3 comparing, carry, trajectory and strike quality. If it is not favourable enough I'll use another shaft blank and go back to the tip weighting/lead tape method. The pulled untipped shaft can be used again in one of the shorter irons. 5. if the results are favourable then will shaft the 4 iron with 3 iron tip trim and butt trimmed to my 5 iron length. The 5 iron will be tip trimmed normally and at 1 inch over so should be identical to my existing 5 iron.6. then a full test of the new 4 versus the old 4. There will be a 1/2 inch between the 2 but the new shorter version will be soft stepped to compensate.7. then repeat this with the 6-8 iron, all shafted at my current 8 iron length of 1 inch over but the 6&7 soft stepped to compensate for the clubhead weight variance.8. again testing as I go and then repeating for the short irons. Just waiting for the DG blanks to come in so will keep you all posted on how I fair. I have decided to try the soft stepping rather than tip weighting method for 2 reasons. Firstly playing characteristics as mentioned above. Secondly I felt that the slightly lighter clubs should allow for a little more clubhead speed thus offsetting any loss the reduction of 0.5 to 1 inch in length may have.