Connect with us

Iron Reviews

Review: Titleist 716 CB and 716 MB irons

Published

on

Pros: The addition of tungsten to the design of the 716 CB irons makes the long and mid irons noticeably easier to hit, without compromising the looks and feel of past models. The 716 MB irons are more refined than their predecessors, and they’ll be a hit with those who enjoyed Titleist’s still-relevant 680 irons.

Cons: The changes to the 716 MB irons are mostly aesthetic.

Who they’re for: The 716 CB irons are a great choice for golfers who think the 716 AP2 irons are too bulky at address, as well as those looking for more forgiveness than one-piece cavity-back and muscleback irons can provide. The 716 MB irons are designed to be used by golf’s most accomplished and feel-orientated players. Their thin soles give better players maximum versatility, particularly if they have a shallow angle of attack.

The Review

4dbfb438394f221a2a9ab9c4d3cb5aea

  • Price: $1,099 steel, $1,299 graphite (MB), $1,199 steel, $1,399 graphite (CB)
  • Irons available: 3-P (MB $137.50 each steel, $162.50 graphite), 2-P (CB, $150 each steel, $175 graphite)
  • Construction: MB — Forged (1025 carbon steel), CB — Forged (1025 carbon steel, tungsten).
  • Stock Shaft: MB — True Temper Dynamic Gold (steel), Mitsubishi Rayon Kuro Kage TiNi 65 (graphite), CB — True Temper Dynamic Gold AMT (steel), Mitsubishi Rayon Kuro Kage TiNi 65 (graphite)
  • Availability: In stores Oct. 23

Titleist’s 716 CB and 716 MB irons target a small subset of golfers who are more concerned with looks, feel, versatility and trajectory control than they are distance and forgiveness. In recent years, however, the irons have never been more different than they are in the 716 line.

Titleist_716_CB_review

Titleist’s 716 CB irons use the company’s co-forged, tungsten-laden design.

For the first time, Titleist has given its 716 CB irons a multi-material design, while shaping tweaks to the 716 MB iron make it reminiscent of the 680 irons Titleist released more than 10 years ago.

With the 716 CB irons, Titleist added tungsten to the design through its co-forging process. Like the 716 AP2 irons, each 716 CB long and mid iron receives its own specially designed set of tungsten weights, which are forged into the corners of the sole to boost moment of inertia (MOI), a measure of ball speed retention on off-center hits.

98524b725faf2c33a7aab42b5a027fcf

The move to tungsten includes an average of 55.52 grams of tungsten per club head (3-7 iron), which is only fractionally less than the average of 56.2 grams of tungsten used Titleist’s 716 AP2 iron heads. Compared to the 714 CB irons, the 716 CB irons have 12.3 percent higher MOI. To put that into perspective, the MOI of the 716 CB matches that of the 714 AP2 irons. That’s remarkable.

Titleist2016_CB

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

Titleist2016_CB2

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

Titleist2016_CB3

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

Most golfers who choose the 716 CB irons won’t be playing them for the additional forgiveness, however. They’ll enjoy their overall shaping, which includes thinner top lines, shorter blade lengths, less offset and narrower soles than the 716 AP2’s. While there will be certain exceptions, as we saw club-by-club in our testing, most golfers will be able to hit the 716 AP2’s farther and more consistently than the 716 CB’s.

The 716 MB irons bring the classic design of Titleist’s 680 irons into the modern era. Unlike the 680’s, which were crafted on the bench, the 716 MB irons were created with computer-aided design (CAD). So yes, they share much of the DNA of those classics, but they’re far from a throwback release.

Of all the great muscleback irons Titleist has produced in the last decade, you may be wondering why the company specifically targeted the 680 irons. The answer is feedback from the best golfers in the world. Two of Titleist’s most prominent PGA Tour brand ambassadors, Adam Scott and Webb Simpson, played the vintage irons long past their time on retail shafts.

Titleist_716_MB_soles

Was their iron choice due to personal preference, or was there something for Titleist to learn about performance and shaping from the 680’s? The answer, as it typically is with the best golfers in the world, was both.

The 716 MB irons use a high-muscle design, but the area above the muscle pad has been thinned out compared to previous MB designs. That allowed Titleist engineers to keep the center of gravity (CG) in the same modern position as the 714 MB irons, yet honor the looks, sound and feel players like Scott and Simpson loved about the 680’s.

Titleist2016_MB

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

Titleist2016_MB2

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

Titleist2016_MB3

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

Looking at the testing data, it’s obvious that the 716 MB’s aren’t going to win any distance contests. They do, however, offer a consistent ball flight for a muscleback iron, along with a classic size that better players will use to gain maximum control over shot shape and trajectory.

In this era of launch-monitor driven purchases, golfers often forget that the confidence they receive from a club at address can be just as valuable to their execution of the shot at hand as an improved CG position. The 716 MB irons are a testament to that.

Titleist_716_CB_Specs

Both the 716 MB and 716 CB irons are designed to be used in mixed sets. For that reason, they use the same stock lofts. For true purists, the 716 CB is available in a 2 iron (18 degrees).

Titleist_716_MB-Specs

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

Related

Your Reaction?
  • 153
  • LEGIT32
  • WOW25
  • LOL12
  • IDHT13
  • FLOP7
  • OB9
  • SHANK25

12 Comments

12 Comments

  1. Tmb

    Sep 23, 2015 at 3:46 am

    MBs are beautiful….. tempted.

  2. Jordan S

    Sep 23, 2015 at 2:46 am

    How are these more expensive than Mizunos and Mizzys are offering shafts for free? Makes no sense, dudu

  3. The dude

    Sep 22, 2015 at 9:00 pm

    Good thing Titleist put MB and FORGED on the back of the blades…..I couldn’t tell.

  4. Mark

    Sep 22, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    Much cleaner looking than the new AP heads.

  5. Z

    Sep 22, 2015 at 5:54 pm

    Love the launch monitor numbers. Great job WRX!

  6. Jim

    Sep 22, 2015 at 5:10 pm

    This was a great article, especially regarding the conclusion regarding confidence at address. I was really impressed with the trackman data which showed that the players hit the MB’s as well as the game improvement irons, despite the difference in lofts for some of the clubs.

  7. Golfraven

    Sep 22, 2015 at 3:08 pm

    The CBs for me please. Just a shame I am not in the buyers market at the moment.

  8. Chuck

    Sep 22, 2015 at 12:07 pm

    Wait; I think you buried the lede, Zak.

    I thought a stock shaft was going to be Dynamic Gold AMT. It was the absolute Number One reason I was looking forward to trying these clubs. It was the main subject of interest in the biggest product launch this fall.

    What is up with the DG AMT part of this story?

    • Zak Kozuchowski

      Sep 22, 2015 at 1:13 pm

      The AMT’s will be a stock option for all the 716 irons, but you’ll find the 716 CB’s on most shelves with the AMT’s, and the 716 MB’s on most shelves with DG S300’s.

  9. Joe

    Sep 22, 2015 at 11:04 am

    Coolio – Oct 23rd

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.

Club Junkie

Club Junkie Review: Cobra’s new King Tour irons

Published

on

The Cobra King Tour irons have been proven on the PGA Tour already and will be in bags of better amateur players this year. The previous King Tour MIM irons were very underrated and offered great precision with a solid shape that many players liked. Cobra went away from the Metal Injection Molded construction and went with a five-step forging process for soft and solid feel.

Make sure to check out the full podcast review at the links below and search GolfWRX Radio on every podcast platform.

I was a big fan of the previous Tour MIM irons and played them in rotation throughout the last two years. Out of the box, I was impressed with the more simple and clean look of the badging on the new King Tour. Badging is mostly silver with just small black accents that should appeal to even the pickiest golfers. I didn’t notice the shorter blade length in the new irons but did notice that the leading edge is just slightly more rounded. Topline is thin, but not razor thin, but still has enough there to give you the confidence that you don’t have to hit it on the dead center every shot.

Feel is solid and soft with just a slight click to the thud on well struck shots while mishits are met with a little more sound and vibration to the hands.

These King Tour irons are built to be cannons and place more emphasis on consistent and precise shots. I also felt like the new irons launch easily and maybe a touch higher than some irons in the same category.

My launch monitor showed my 7 iron with an average launch angle of 22 degrees and spin right around 5,800 with a Project X LZ 6.0 stock shaft. Ball speed isn’t the ultimate focus of this iron but it did well with an average around 108mph and the iron was able to keep the speed up well when you didn’t strike the center. You will still see a drop off in speed and distance when you miss the center, but you don’t have to be Navy SEAL sniper accurate on the face to achieve a good shot. Dispersion was very tight, and while there are bigger irons with more forgiveness, this players cavity still allows good playability when you aren’t bringing your A-plus game to the course.

Cobra lists the King Tour as an iron for a Tour level player up to a 7 handicap and I think this iron could see the bags of more golfers than that. I am a 9.4 handicap, and I felt more than comfortable playing this iron even on less than perfect days.

Your Reaction?
  • 14
  • LEGIT4
  • WOW2
  • LOL0
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP0
  • OB0
  • SHANK0

Continue Reading

Iron Reviews

Review: Honma TW737-Vs Forged Irons

Published

on

Your Reaction?
  • 247
  • LEGIT31
  • WOW17
  • LOL2
  • IDHT0
  • FLOP8
  • OB1
  • SHANK37

Continue Reading

Equipment

GolfWRX Member Reviews: TaylorMade 2017 M1 and M2 Irons

Published

on

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.

df5745825623a9697f92315cd9d8f1d7

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!

Brock9007

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.

deathbymuffin

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.

poppyhillsguy

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.

Fourpar18

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.

noahdavis_7

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.

golfnut5438

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.

DblEgl

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.

Bstein74

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.

Bobcat271

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.

myurick2

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. 

hammergolf

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. 

Ace2000

M1 

– 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

M2

– 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

tpeterson

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?
  • 30
  • LEGIT4
  • WOW1
  • LOL1
  • IDHT1
  • FLOP3
  • OB3
  • SHANK20

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending