Connect with us

Iron Reviews

Review: Titleist 716 AP2 irons



Pros: The 716 AP2 irons retain the looks, forged feel and flight characteristics of Titleist’s previous model, while adding 25 percent more tungsten to their design to improve performance on off-center hits. Stock shaft options include True Temper’s Dynamic Gold AMT.

Cons: By no means are the 716 AP2’s “distance irons.” Their forged construction (1025 carbon steel) and reinforced club face design limits the distance these will fly, especially when compared to Titleist’s 716 T-MB and 716 AP1 irons.

Who they’re for: Single-digit handicappers to the best golfers in the world. Every iron in the set allows for ultimate trajectory control, while still pardoning slight mishits.

The Review


  • Price: $1.199 steel, $1,399 graphite (for eight irons)
  • Irons available: 3-P, W ($150 each steel, $175 each (graphite)
  • Construction: Forged (1025 carbon steel, tungsten)
  • Stock Shaft: True Temper Dynamic Gold AMT (steel), Mitsubishi Rayon Kuro Kage TiNi 65 (graphite)
  • Availability: In stores Oct. 23

An analysis of Titleist’s 716 AP2 against its competitors reveals that the irons are mostly in a league of their own, which is at least partially due to the AP2’s own success. Now in its fifth iteration, the AP2’s have become a leading choice with better players as many manufacturers have trended toward larger, distance-orientated players irons — often at the expense of looks, sound and feel.

At the time of its release, there’s simply no other forged players iron that can match the technical accomplishments of the 716 AP2, which follows in a design strategy that resulted in its predecessor, the 714 AP2, being used to win all four major championships from 2013-2015 (Jordan Spieth in the 2015 Masters and U.S. Open, Zach Johnson in the 2015 Open Championship and Jason Dufner in the 2013 PGA Championship).

What Titleist continues to get right with the AP2 line has to do with its compact size, as well as what’s referenced its namesake: “Advanced Precision.” The 716 AP2 offer more forgiveness than the previous model by using an industry-leading amount of tungsten in the irons. Titleist uses an average of 56.2 grams of the high-density material in the 3-7 irons of the 716 AP2. Its competitors don’t even approach half of that number.


The 3-7 irons use an industry-leading amount of tungsten to improve launch, ball speed and forgiveness.

What’s also distinct is Titleist’s co-forging process, or the way the tungsten is distributed. Each of the iron heads (3-7) is fitted with a specialized pair of tungsten weights, which are forged into corners of their soles to maximize the irons moment of inertia (MOI), a measure of ball speed retention on off-center hits. It’s that process that has allowed the AP2 irons to remain essentially the same size over the years, yet improve on the performance of past models. It also allows the multi-material design to retain an acoustic quality eerily similar to other 1025 carbon steel forgings, yet offer forgiveness typical of much larger club heads.


The 716 AP2’s reinforced face design gives golfers maximum feedback and consistency.

Of course, golf is played on courses, not in engineering departments, and on grass is where the 716 AP2’s truly shine. I’ve tested a variety of leading players irons from different manufacturers in recent years, and the AP2’s always surprise me with how compact they are at address. While their shorter blade lengths and slight offset can be intimidating for less-skilled golfers, many better players — especially those who, like me, grew up playing traditional forged cavity-back and muscleback irons — gain a feeling of control and precision from their small chassis.

What’s just as important is the way the AP2 feel at impact. Marni Ines, director of product development at Titleist, makes the case that forged irons with tungsten in their design can actually feel softer at impact than one-piece forgings because of its aforementioned MOI boost, which causes less twisting of the club head on mishits. Both myself and our two testers noted Titleist’s tungsten-laden 716 CB and 716 AP2 irons as feeling softer than the company’s 716 MB irons, which supports Ines’ stance.


The turf interaction of the AP2 irons is also fantastic for better players — especially those with moderate-to-steeper angles of attack. The irons, because of their compact size, are extremely nimble on long grass. From tighter, firmer lies, their Vokey-inspired sole grind, which uses a combination of a pre-worn leading edge and a reasonably cambered sole, supports a golfer’s ambition to make ball-first contact, strike the ground and keep the club moving through the turf without snagging.


Titleist is the exclusive launch partner for True Temper’s Dynamic Gold AMT shaft.

These finer points of the 716 AP2 design, which Titleist has honed with the feedback from its staff of Tour Professionals, have to breed confidence with golfers in the form of reassurance that they’re using the same clubs the best golfers in the world are using to support their livelihoods.


The 716 AP2 lofts remain the same as past models.

The one weakness of the 716 AP2 may not be a weakness at all, depending on your needs. Their club faces are reinforced with structure that prevents them from creating any meaningful spring-like effect at impact. Other manufactures, including Titleist with its 716 AP1 irons and 716-T-MB irons, have sought to increase this spring-like effect to add distance and retain more consistent ball speed on off-center hits.

There’s no question that fast-faced irons are effective at adding ball speed, which you can see in the comparative data of the 716 AP1 and 716 T-MB irons below, but so far the reception of such irons by PGA Tour players has been lukewarm at best. At the high levels of competitive golf, most players demand irons that offer accurate feedback and reassure them that their best and worst shots will fly exactly the distance they expect. The AP2’s live in that space.


All 716 irons were Trackman tested with the same shaft (model and length), same grip, and Titleist’s stock specs.


All 716 irons were Trackman tested with the same shaft (model and length), same grip, and Titleist’s stock specs.


All 716 irons were Trackman tested with the same shaft (model and length), same grip, and Titleist’s stock specs.

Expect the 716 AP2 irons to go a little farther on mishits than their predecessors — especially the long irons — but don’t buy them if your main desire is more distance than you’re getting from your set of 714 AP2’s.

See what GolfWRX Members are saying about the 716 AP1, AP2, T-MB, CB and MB irons in our forum. 

[wrx_retail_links productid=”25″]


Your Reaction?
  • 271
  • LEGIT43
  • WOW29
  • LOL14
  • IDHT11
  • FLOP14
  • OB11
  • SHANK59



  1. Crushit350

    May 30, 2017 at 9:30 am

    Thank you for the info on the lofts I was wondering why the 714’s distance seemed a little different then my old 712’s. Did Titleist change the lofts any from 714 to 716?

  2. Scott

    Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    New 716s are amazing. Played several rounds with my new set coming off 2 yrs with 714s. Noticeable difference. Well done.

  3. Chris

    Dec 4, 2015 at 4:59 pm

    Is it me or do the spin numbers seem quite low. Both players seem to have higher than average swing speeds, particularly player 1, but for the 7 iron, spin is down in the 5000s with a tour average in the 7000 range and for pw, spin in the mid to high 8000s with tour average 9300. Not everyone should be expected to have tour player spin numbers, but these two testers have comparable to tour player speeds. Just curious….

    • pete the pro

      Dec 9, 2015 at 11:37 am

      I am hoping you (and others) will appreciate the simplicity of information that I can provide. Launch angles will vary depending upon the player. My best 7 iron launches at 19 degrees and has 7000 rpm backspin. It travels 165 yards through the air. Many of the launch angles and spin rates achieved by the testers are not ideal. I can make my 7 iron go much lower, reducing the spin rate and increasing the distance – but why would I do this other than to impress someone? Optimum spin rate is about the same as the number on the sole, ie, 5 iron, 5000 rpm. Driver, under the 3,000 is good.

      • Chris

        Dec 21, 2015 at 10:43 am

        Pete…thanks for the reply. That’s what I’ve always used as an estimate too…1000*club stamp. My numbers are very close to yours…about 7000 spin on my 714 cb 7 iron and carry right at about 170-172. I’ve also heard that as lofts have come down, the spin should come down by maybe as much as 15%, so a 7000 rpm 7 iron nowadays could/should be about about 6000. But these numbers are even lower than that.

  4. Rich

    Oct 28, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    Haven’t hit either of them yet, but if think the MP25’s would be my pick on looks over AP2. I think I’d paintfill the run bird on the back though.

  5. golfraven

    Oct 21, 2015 at 2:47 am

    I am sure the AP2 is a great performer but I would certainly go the CB route. I didn´t choose the AP2 4-5 years ago and would not choose them today. The CBs are just much more superior to the AP- – from experience hitting both clubs and looking at the chart here related to carry, launch, etc. – also looks are bit factor and . Ideally I would like to go the MB (PW-8) and CB (7-5) combo. Looking forward to the demo days in 2016. Funny looking at the chart as the normal dude would probably hit a 7 iron in the 155-165 range. So where do you get the extra 10 -20 yards from, what HCPs are Player 1&2?

  6. Jack

    Oct 15, 2015 at 5:46 am

    Good thing they got Bubba and Jason Day (yeah I know they are not Titleist guys) to test it. I really want to know if they will be able to perform when I smack my 7 iron 185 carry. Who/what are these testers?

  7. skip

    Sep 29, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    AP stands for “Advanced Performance” not Advanced Precision. Just saying.

  8. Scott

    Sep 24, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    I’m seriously going to compare these to the new Callaway Apex Pros once released. Not crazy of the look on those sticks either. 🙁

  9. Scott

    Sep 24, 2015 at 6:45 pm

    I think the CB’s or even the MB’s look better but I’ll test em out. Why not. I love my 714 AP2’s so not sure how much difference these will be. I’m shopping…

  10. DolphLundrenade

    Sep 23, 2015 at 1:59 pm

    This isn’t an article… this is an advert. This doesn’t even read like an article.

    I guess we’ll all have to find a new website because this is rubbish. Golfwrx sold out. I’m guessing all a company has to do is pay some bucks for a positive article and Golfwrx and their staff writer Zak (spelling) Kuzochow.. ski? will just soft serve up some shiny words to increase their bank accounts.

    • golfraven

      Oct 21, 2015 at 2:55 am

      Agree, those supposed “Reviews” are just BS. I can go to the Titleist site and get more information from there. Launch Monitor data is useless if you don´t compare your own personal numbers – and for sure I am hitting my 7iron 175/185 yards respectively.

  11. Hippocamp

    Sep 23, 2015 at 10:23 am

    A quote from the article: “At the time of its release, there’s simply no other forged players iron that can match the technical accomplishments of the 716 AP2, which follows in a design strategy that resulted in its predecessor, the 714 AP2, being used to win all four major championships from 2013-2015 (Jordan Spieth in the 2015 Masters and U.S. Open, Zach Johnson in the 2015 Open Championship and Jason Dufner in the 2013 PGA Championship).”

    OK, fine. So why didn’t the 714 AP2s even make the TOP SEVEN in GolWRX’s own “Best Players Irons” of 2015? You guys ranked at least seven other models in front of them, and now you say that the AP2 series is the best in golf…

    • Balle

      Sep 23, 2015 at 1:24 pm

      Those majors were won because of the BALL, not the club.

      • TR1PTIK

        Sep 23, 2015 at 1:46 pm

        Or, maybe the player had something to do with it? Lol. You guys are funny.

      • pete the pro

        Dec 9, 2015 at 11:56 am

        I think it may have been something to do with the quality of the player too. It’s an awkward truth than a skilled player will make almost any ball and club work well. It’s the technique that remains so critical to the result. It’s a game of basic fundamentals. My staff were practising with a traded in set (value – nil!) of Sam Snead Blue Ridge from years ago. They performed perfectly well. Here’s the tough question for us to consider…… has golf been hijacked by excessive technical analysis, launch monitors, putting labs and mental trainers?

  12. Jorge

    Sep 23, 2015 at 6:46 am

    Titleist need to get a new product designer because they continue to release insipid clubs every year. The AP2’s look like crap…Titleist clubs are totally overrated!!!

  13. mo

    Sep 23, 2015 at 2:54 am

    IMO the 714s look much better and come on Titleist the AP2’s should not have a 46* pw. For shame!!!!!! First time in a long time I’m disappointed in you guys.

  14. Jordan S

    Sep 23, 2015 at 2:28 am

    I said no to these

  15. Hilliary is worse than the queen on Game of Thrones

    Sep 22, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    Aesthetically they are ugly. How they perform, haven’t hit them. Glad I pulled the trigger on 714AP 2’s, X-100 tour issue. I agree with previous poster low launch angle on data.

    • Large chris

      Sep 23, 2015 at 11:57 am

      Mark Crossfield has just tested them and come out at 15.1 degrees launch angle on the 4 iron, as opposed to 7.6 degrees here. I’ve no idea about their swings, and I appreciate they are useful comparison numbers, but I don’t think these are the right two testers to really put them through their paces.

  16. Mat

    Sep 22, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    Cons: By no means are the 716 AP2’s “distance irons.” Their forged construction (1025 carbon steel) and reinforced club face design limits the distance these will fly, especially when compared to Titleist’s 716 T-MB and 716 AP1 irons.

    As long as a “lack of distance” is considered a drawback, is it any wonder why people have such wild views about lofts, loft jacking, and 17 more yards? When you say “limits the distance”, does that not suggest yardage control? This is a target sport, right?

    • John

      Sep 27, 2015 at 9:30 am

      Agree 100%… How can that be a “con”? I don’t get why people are so fixated on more distance. When is this distance craze going to end, when a 7 iron flies 230??? In all seriousness though, AP2 are meant for the established low handicapper in mind… And at that level having and knowing precise distances is what is desired.

  17. Golfraven

    Sep 22, 2015 at 3:12 pm

    Too much hoing on here. I set my heart on the CBs if considering Titleist at all. Maybe in 2 years again.

  18. Mark

    Sep 22, 2015 at 2:47 pm

    714s staying bag. 716s too bling. Many Titleist players are traditionalists. They leave bling to other companies.

  19. HackerDav31

    Sep 22, 2015 at 11:17 am

    Not feeling these. Too much happening on them in my opinion. TM Psi has me intrigued having seen them up close and how good they look. These just seem a bridge too far for Titleist. Kind of reminds me of when FJ try to do technical, athletic looking footwear. It ain’t their forte…

  20. tbone

    Sep 22, 2015 at 11:00 am

    Very nice. I like the look of the 714 a bit more. Maybe they just need to grow on me. According to these number they travel pretty far. 146 PW is pretty BIG.

  21. JP

    Sep 22, 2015 at 10:13 am

    Is it a review or ad from titleist?

  22. MBA-J

    Sep 22, 2015 at 9:07 am

    They’re just so ugly, though…

  23. Large chris

    Sep 22, 2015 at 9:04 am

    Nice set of comparison numbers, just a couple of things…

    Player 1 launch angle with a 4 iron is 7.6 degrees????? Yes he is swinging fast but with just 4000rpm that ball is not stopping on the green. Absurdly low launch angle. All those launch angles look very low, I’m a bit cautious about them. PGA tour average with a 4 iron is around 12 degrees.

    Secondly, and I will be in a minority of one on this, but I am struggling to love my set of 712 AP2s. To me they appear a bit boxy, neither sleek and slim like a true blade, nor powerful and solid like a GI iron, kind of worst of both worlds. It’s been long acknowledged you can see the back of the AP2 long irons from the address position.

  24. Teaj

    Sep 22, 2015 at 8:51 am

    Coming from someone that does not need to hit the ball longer I think thats a great idea to reduce the spring like effect. its going to be interesting to try these against my current Srixon Z745’s. also it will be interesting to see how the AMT shaft feels as a few guys have already switched to them on tour.

    • Steve

      Feb 18, 2016 at 11:26 pm

      Hi Teaj,
      I saw your comments from the 716 ap2 review. I was curious to know if you did a comparison of your srixon z745 compared to the new 716 ap2’s? How was feel? Turf interaction? I am currently debating between these two sets of irons. How about which iron was more forgiving? Did you like the AMT shafts? Thank you so much for helping me!!

      • Victor

        Mar 13, 2016 at 3:29 pm

        Yes indeed, it would be very interesting to read a comparison between the z745 and the ap2!

  25. Mike

    Sep 22, 2015 at 8:11 am

    Titliest fanboys begin the creaming of your panties!

  26. DJ

    Sep 22, 2015 at 8:00 am

    Same lofts as 714?

    • Double Mocha Man

      Sep 22, 2015 at 10:18 am

      From the 6 iron through the Wedge they are 1 degree stronger than the 712 AP2’s

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Iron Reviews

Review: Honma TW737-Vs Forged Irons



Your Reaction?
  • 240
  • LEGIT30
  • WOW17
  • LOL1
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP6
  • OB1
  • SHANK36

Continue Reading


GolfWRX Member Reviews: TaylorMade 2017 M1 and M2 Irons



One of the many benefits of being a GolfWRX Forum Member is exclusive access to Giveaways and Testing Threads. For Giveaways — we give away everything from golf clubs to golf balls to GPS units — all it takes is a forum name. Enter any Giveaway, and we select winners randomly. You’re then free to enjoy your prize as you wish.

For Testing Threads, the process a bit more involved. GolfWRX Forum Members sign up to test the latest and greatest products in golf, and then they provide in-depth reviews on the equipment. Being the intelligent golf-equipment users they are, GoflWRX Members are able to provide the most-informed and unbiased reviews on the Internet.


In this Testing Thread, we selected 75 members to test a TaylorMade M1 2017 7-iron and TaylorMade M2 7-iron. Each of the clubs were built with the stock lofts and shafts — M2 2017 (28.5 degrees) with a TaylorMade Reax shaft, and M1 2017 (30.5 degrees) with a True Temper Dynamic Gold S300 shaft — and the testers were instructed to post their review of the clubs here.

Below, we’ve selected what we’ve deemed the most in-depth and educated reviews out of the 75 testers. We have edited each of the posts for brevity, clarity and grammar.

Thanks to all of those involved in the testing!


To be honest, looking down on the TaylorMade M1 and M2 irons at address, there is really not much difference. I would have to pick one up to see which is which.

The first 10 balls I hit were with M1 and 6/10 felt great, while the other 4 were toe hits, which I felt and the distance reflected that. Kinda what I expected with a club design for lower-handicap players. Distance was about 1/2 longer than my Srixon iron and dispersion was close, as well. I will say they did not feel as good as the Srixon on center hits.

Next 10 (ok, 15) balls were with the M2. Wow, can you say “up, up and away? The ball really popped of the club face, but wasn’t a ballon flight. Waited for the ball to come down and WTH, with the roll out it was 5-8 yards longer than balls hit with M1, and that is with a few toe shots. I did some smooth swings and then very aggressive swings and was a little amazed at this iron. Just like the M1, it does not have the forged feeling and does have a clicky sound (which I hate).

Bottom line: M2 is the longest iron I have ever hit. I love my 545s, but I could see myself playing M2 very easily. Matter of fact, I will be taking this M2 7 iron in my bag and play it more head-to-head against my Srixon 545 on the course.


These are both beautiful clubs. What surprised me the most is how much alike the two clubs look at address. I was expecting a chunky topline and significant offset in the M2, but it’s footprint looked almost exactly the same as the M1, outside of the chrome finish on the M2 versus the frosted finish of the M1. The M2 could almost pass as a player’s iron to my eye at address. These clubs both get A’s from me in the looks department.

The M1 felt a tad thicker than most player’s irons I’m used to, but it seemed to come with a bit of added forgiveness too. Well-struck shots felt good, with a nice mid-trajectory and with the workability that I’ve come to expect from a player’s iron. But true to TaylorMade’s claims, the M1 seemed more forgiving than a traditional player’s iron. Had a nice soft feel at impact, mishits didn’t sting and left you with a more playable result. A really nice combination of the better attributes of both player’s and game improvement irons. I’ve been playing with an old set of Tommy Armour blades, but I’ve been recently wanting more forgiveness for when I’m stuck with my B or C swing. Based on the early returns, I could definitely see myself bagging these.

I’m not sure if it’s the shaft, the design of the clubhead, or a combination of both, but the M2 is definitely a different animal than the M1 at impact. This club launches the ball high, arguably ridiculously so. I was hitting Jason Day moonbombs with this bad boy. Didn’t seem to matter what kind of swing I put on it, the ball launched high, flat and dead straight. The club was super forgiving and if not for the insanely high ball flight, I would love to have a set of these for when my swing is out of sorts. I didn’t really try to flight it at all, so I’m not sure what it’s capable of at this point. One other note was that the M2 had a clicky feel at impact. It didn’t bother me since it still felt so sweet… so strange as it sounds, clicky, but smooth and sweet at the same time. I think these clubs will be big winners with the mid-to-high handicap set.

The M1 is a fine iron, but doesn’t really stand out in any way from other irons of its class.

The M2, on the other hand, is an iron on steroids. I’m really starting to love this thing. It’s super forgiving and just goes and goes. According to my laser, flush shots were going 195 yards (my usual blade 5 iron distance) and very high. I can’t help but think golf would be a whole lot easier, particularly longer courses with long par 3s, with a full set of these in my bag.


M1 feels softer than the M2 and I felt the ball flight was more consistent and what I want in an iron. The M1 did have a harsher feeling in my hands than I typically like, but I’m going to credit a lot of that to the range balls.

M2 flies very high. It was a windy afternoon and about 100 degrees. I love the high ball flight on the range, but I have a concern what that ball flight would be like on the course. I like to hit the ball different heights for different shots and I don’t think I could do that confidently with the M2, but I could with the M1. I don’t like the sound of the M2. It sounded “clicky” to me.


Initially on the range I was scared because the M1 had a regular flex in it, so I took it easy for my initial 10-15 swings with it. Ball SHOT off the face, loud crack (didn’t care for it, but not too bad) and ball just kept rising and rising but didn’t balloon. I thought, “whoa,” that’s not what I expected…did it again…another CRACK and the ball just flew. I set another down and I paid attention to how it looked behind the ball, not much offset for a game improvement and I thought…”I could actually play this club!”  The 5-7 were EASY swings, aimed at a target of 170 yards away (my normal 7 iron distance) and with a EASY swing I was flying it by 20 yards or so. The next 5-10 I really went after it, same CRACK and ball just flew but to my surprise it was a nice draw, harder draw than the first but it was a nice 10-yard draw. This time the balls were landing just short of the 200 yard marker. Damn, 200 yards with a 7 iron! I know they are jacked lofts but it feels good to say “my 7 irons just few 190-200 yards!”

P.S. LOVE the Lamkin UTX grip!

Now, this was interesting, the M2 was quieter then the M1… weird!  Now, there is more carbon fiber added to this one and there is a “Geocoustic” label on the back. I am sure that it has something to do with all that carbon fiber but it does have a better sound. Other than the sound, it played exactly like the M1: long and straight. The REAX shaft felt a little weaker than the True Temper shaft and it flew a little higher but nothing else I could pick up.


Finally got out to the range after getting these bad boys in on Friday. My first impression of them is that they look really sharp. The graphics and design really stand out and really give these clubs a cool, modern look.

They were both a little to big IMO, as I am currently bagging Mizuno MP-68s. The M2 isa definite “game improvement iron”, while the M1 was similar in size and shape to my previous irons, Titleist AP1s.

They both really launch it, high and far. Ridiculous for 7 irons. I don’t have access to a launch monitor, but it was about a 20-yard difference between my gamer 7 iron and these (stronger lofts, as well).

The M1 definitely was more suited for my eye, and produced more consistent ball flights. It felt much more smooth and solid as the M2 had a clicky, cheap feel.

The M2 just isn’t for me. I felt like it was launching too high and ballooning, which could be due to the shaft (the M1 had the S300, while the M2 just had a stock “Reax” shaft). The feel off the face of the M2 just turned me off, to be honest.

While I don’t think I’ll be putting either model in play, I can definitely see the appeal for mid-to-high handicaps. Both irons were super forgiving, and they should be a dream to the average weekend golfer who has trouble with ball striking consistently.


Looks: As expected, I preferred the M1 with less offset, slightly smaller sole and a smoother finish. Less glare looking down on the iron. I must say the M2 did not look as bulky, or have as much offset as I thought it might have.

Feel: This was a close race, probably due to the shafts as much as the heads. The M1 was just a slight bit smoother feeling on solid shots. But the M2 was not bad at all, just not quite as smooth.

Distance and performance: Our range has a slight incline up the length of the range, so specific yardage gains or losses were difficult to measure. Both irons had a higher trajectory than my gamer 7 iron. Neither sole dug onto the turf either. The lofts for both irons are a degree or two stronger than mine, so I would think they probably flew a little further than my gamers. Neither iron flew “too” high, however. Might be a little harder to hit knock down shots, though.

Final thoughts: I had hit both the M1 and M2 irons last year during a fitting day, but did not like either. This year’s model were both better in my eyes. I asked a fellow member at our club to hit both and he felt the M1 was his preferred model, and he is a 20-index player. So coming from both a single digit, and a high double-digit, the M1 won this battle of wills. I will try and see if I can locate both a 5 iron and 9 iron to see if a full set might be a winner for me.


I was surprised that the M2 was the winner in this brief session. It felt better, flew higher, easier to hit and about 1/2 club longer that my gamer Apex CF16. The feel/sound was better than I thought it might be, but really not up to the CF16. I could, however, easily game the M2’s.


Feel: I hit the M2 first, and found it to be very solid when hit on the screws. There was almost no feel off the club face at all. When I mishit it, you knew it was, but it wasn’t harsh at all. Hit the M1 next, and same type of feel when hit solid. Much more harsh when mishit though, but I knew that was coming.

Distance and performance: This is was where I was curious to see how they would play. The M2 went out high in the air, and just kept going forever. Now granted my eyesight isn’t that great anymore, but it looked like I got about 10-15 yards more from the M2 compared to my Wilson D300. The only thing I didn’t like about the M2 was how much I was able to turn it over. Got a lot more hook compared to my D300. Don’t know if that was from the REAX shaft, but would love to find a less spinning shaft to correct that.

The M1 wasn’t a great performer for me. Same height as the M2, but much straighter off the club face. Didn’t get any great distance advantage as compared to my D300. Can’t game a player’s iron anymore, and testing this one just reaffirmed that.

Final thoughts: Was very happy with the distance I gained with the M2 compared to my current gamer. Very good-performing iron for me, and something I would definitely consider changing them out if I could reduce the spin off the face. If you’re looking for more distance, you need to try these out. The M1 just wasn’t for me, but as a player’s iron, I can see it as a great option.


Like the other testers, I found the M2 to launch the ball much higher and is 10-to-15 yards longer than my Adams XTD forged 7 iron. Of the two 7 irons I prefer the M1. I like the design of the M1 and its visual appearance at address. I feel more confident in trying to work the ball with the M1. The M1 gave me more feedback as to where the club head was in relation to my swing plane. If I had my druthers I would put the M1 in the bag as it stands now. Will continue to test, what a treat to compare the two irons.


Once I started making solid contact with a decent shoulder turn, the M2 really came alive in my hands. Towering flat height, for me, and very long. No more clacky hollow feel, just a very mild pleasant sensation… then zoom. Once I started making better swings, back to the M1, which was a very nice iron. Shorter than the M2 (though not short) and a little lower ball flight. Felt nice and substantial without being heavy. Very forgiving on slight mishits.

But the M2 was the star for me. High trajectory and very long. Club felt lively and fun. Frankly, unless a player wanted a lower trajectory, or likes to hit a lot of knock downs or feel shots, I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t choose the M2. They are very attractive and a very fun iron. I think folks who say that the M2 feels and/or sounds clicky, clacky or hollow may be mishitting the iron toward the toe. I am not judging — I mishit a lot of shots at first. I agree on toe mishits the iron did not feel great. It almost felt like plastic. The ball still flew pretty well, but it wasn’t a very enjoyable experience. Not painful, just felt very dead. But when hit nearer the center, the iron felt fantastic. Light, springy and very lively. 


They are both good-looking clubs. Not too long heel to toe and toplines were not that distracting. M1 is more what I like to see shape wise, but M2 was not bad at all. Personally, not a fan of seeing the face slots. But I could see how some people may like how they frame the ball. 



– Has a very odd sound on contact, almost sounds a tad like a fairway wood “ting. Not a fan
– Looks very good at address with the brushed finish
– Most shots I hit with it seemed to fall out of the sky (very likely a lack of spin). Ball flight was much lower than I would have expected (not super low, just not much different than my 7 iron)
– Inconsistent misses. Next to no distance gains vs RocketBladez Tour 7 iron


– Doesn’t look as good at address as the M1. Chrome finish at address is not an issue in even direct sunlight for me
– Feels and sounds quite nice to my ears at impact. Not a classic sound but very good considering what type of club it is
– Ball flight is very strong (comes off hot). Ball stays high in the air for awhile. Very high and lands soft
– 10-12 yards longer on average vs my 7 iron, it even had the horsepower to hang with my 6 iron
– VERY forgiving on thin strikes. Couldn’t believe how a near-top still traveled to nearly the front edge in the air and still went as far as the M1 did on a good strike
– Shaft is too light

Even though I’m a 2-handicap and don’t fit the M2 “mold,” I could see myself playing this club from 4-6 iron (although gapping would be a major issue mixing these with almost anything else) if it had a heavier shaft in it (I can only imagine how far this 4 iron must go… yikes)

M1 = 2.5/5 stars
M2 = 4.5/5 stars


Visual first impressions: The M1 7-iron is visually appealing to me as far as the finish and overall look. Even though it is classified as a player’s iron, it doesn’t seem so tiny that it would be tough to hit. I am not a huge fan of the bright-yellow badging, but I probably could get over it. The iron inspires confidence with its topline and a little bit of offset. The “rubber” piece on the hosel is a little bit funky to me.

I thought the M2 7-iron would look clunkier than it really is. Besides the finish being a little bit different, the difference between the M1 and M2 is actually pretty small. The M2’s topline and sole are a touch wider, but not by much. Not a huge fan of the fluted hosel since it can be seen at address. The M1’s fluting is only on the rear of the club.

I did notice that the sole’s finish did scratch pretty easily. Overall, I thought the M1 and M2 are pretty good looking, but I would definitely give the edge to the M1. I also preferred the stock Lamkin grip on the M1 vs. the ribbed M2 grip.

On course action: They both feel solid. I tried hitting both irons in all different types of on-course situations over a two week period. Both clubs launch the ball high but I would not say they balloon. For me, the M2 was about 10 yards longer and higher than the M1. Compared to my Cleveland irons, they are 1 to 1.5 clubs longer.

M1 loft = 30.5
M2 loft = 28.5
Cleveland TA7 loft = 33.5

I know this accounts for the distance gain but the ball definitely comes off hot compared to my set. I was hoping I would hit the M1 better since I like the appearance better, but that was not the case. The M2 definitely felt better for me and I felt more confident with it in my hands.

Discussion: Read all 75 reviews and the responses in our Testing Thread

Your Reaction?
  • 29
  • LEGIT4
  • WOW1
  • LOL1
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP3
  • OB3
  • SHANK20

Continue Reading


Members Choice: The Best Irons of 2017



To help golfers find the best irons for them in 2017, we enlisted the services of GolfWRX Members, the most knowledgeable golfers on the internet. They not only understand the technology used in the latest golf equipment, but they also test new clubs extensively. Following their detailed experiences and words of wisdom about the latest products is the perfect starting point for anyone interested in purchasing new golf clubs.

To gather their votes and feedback, we as a company first needed to properly sort the irons into categories. We aimed to keep the categories as simple as possible with 2017’s crop of irons, and we broke them down into three general categories:

  • Players Irons: Basically, small-sized irons. These irons have sleek top lines and soles. They place workability and control over distance, and for that reason they’re irons you can expect to see in the bag of a professional golfer.
  • Game-Improvement Irons: Basically, medium-sized irons. This category includes a wide-range of clubs that blend distance, forgiveness, good looks and workability.
  • Super Game-Improvement Irons: Basically, large-sized irons. These irons are juiced with hot faces, wide soles, thick top lines, big offset and a low center of gravity, among other engineering feats, that are often unique to each company.

Note: Because of the abundance of Players Irons currently available, we divided that category into two categories: Players Irons and Exotics Players Irons. The Exotic Players Irons list included players irons from companies such as Epon, Fourteen, Miura, PXG, and Honma, which are not as widely available for testing in the U.S.

Below you can access the full results of our Members Choice 2017: Best Irons lists, as well as feedback about each iron from the GolfWRX Community. We’d like to sincerely thank all the GolfWRX Members who participated in the voting and provided feedback on the irons. We also want to thank those of you who provided feedback on the voting process itself. We assure you that we read and consider everything, and we’re going to continue to improve our process in order to provide the best and most useful information about the latest golf equipment.

Members Choice: The Best Players Irons


Vote Leader: Mizuno JPX-900 Tour

“WOW! Great mix of buttery feel and forgiveness.”

Overall, the Mizuno JPX-900 Tour irons earned nearly 15 percent of votes on the Players iron category, giving them top billing for players irons. One GolfWRX member said he was “weak in the knees from first look at the satin finish and compact size,” and that the “feel is excellent, and there’s just enough forgiveness.” Another said the JPX-900 Tour irons are the “best irons out there right now in terms of blending feel, forgiveness, and the ability to shape shots.”

Full List: The Best Players Irons of 2017

Members Choice: The Best Exotic Players Irons


Vote Leader: PXG 0311T

“I can’t say I have ever hit anything that feels as good as the PXG.”

With more 21 percent of votes for the Best Exotics Players Irons of 2017, PXG’s 0311T irons were described by GolfWRX members as “a great looking club,” and that they “felt unbelievable.” When comparing the irons to Titleist’s 716 MB irons, one member said, “The fact that you can barely tell if it has or doesn’t have more offset than the MB 7 iron just shows how little it has.”

Full List: The Best Exotic Players Irons of 2017

Members Choice: Best Game-Improvement Irons


Vote Leader: Callaway Apex CF ’16 

“Apex CF is simply the most explosive, best feeling iron I’ve ever hit in this category.”

Acquiring nearly 20 percent of votes of all models in the Best Game-Improvement Iron category, GolfWRX Members described the Callaway Apex CF ’16 irons as “simply the most explosive,” and that they “perform very well on center hits and almost as good on mishits.”

Full List: The Best Game-Improvement Irons of 2017

The Best Super Game-Improvement Irons 


Vote Leader: Ping G

“The Ping G takes what Ping has done for years and added in increased ball speed, improved feel and much better looks.”

An iron that “will appeal even to Ping haters.” GolfWRX Members described the Ping G as “stupid easy to hit,” providing a “high and straight ball flight,” and “an eye opener.” The irons also accumulated more than 22 percent of the total votes in the category.

Full List: The Best Super Game-Improvement irons of 2017

Your Reaction?
  • 297
  • LEGIT39
  • WOW16
  • LOL18
  • IDHT8
  • FLOP15
  • OB10
  • SHANK115

Continue Reading