Callaway X-16 Set Irons

Callaway X-16 Set Irons 

DESCRIPTION

The standard X-16 Irons have a shorter blade length and a higher topline than the X-14 irons, with the benefit of Callaway Golf''s new "Notch" weighting. This moves the weight to the perimeter for strong, confidence-enhancing look behind the ball. Each iron has a low center of gravity for strong trajectory and great forgiveness, a cambered sole for better turf interaction, and a soft satin finish with a contrasting, sandblasted hitting area. The graphite shafts give you the flex options that you want - with the options to benefit varied swing speeds and styles. Also available in proprietary, ultralight, uniflex Constant Weight steel shaft manufactured by True Temper.

USER REVIEWS

Showing 31-40 of 76  
[Apr 11, 2005]
TP-9Lefty
Shoots in the 70s
Model Reviewed: Callaway x-16

I've only played a couple rounds with these. My friend let me borrow his set. He's left handed too. My regular set are Titleist 690mb blades. Here's my review on the x-16's. Fun to hit. The Uniflex steel shaft delivers good distance and decent accuracy when using a smooth swing tempo. The oversized club heads have a large sweet spot. The swing weight feels more like a D-3 allowing you to feel the club throughout the swing. Looks can be argued, but I feel they look fairly nice. Ok, here's the flipside. The heads are very big. This was tough to deal with at address. In addition to a very thick topline, the cavities extend outwards creating a very uncomfortable appearance. Not too many people talk about the short game with their irons. I see too many reviews talking about "long and straight." Irons should be just as effective with pitch shots and running it up the green as they are off the tee. Although I found it easy enough to get the ball up with the X-16's, I had a hard time using these clubs with the delicate shots. Punch shots from 30 yards and in just flew the green in many cases. The club head on the PW and SW was not easy to control or get under the ball on a flop shot, probally due to the added bounce of the large cavity back area. This characteristic also made it hard to play out of the bunkers with the X-16 sand wedge. Also, the increased offset of these clubs makes it tough to really time a draw, however, that could be because I'm use to playing clubs with hardly any offset. Pitching the ball was decent as long as the ball was fluffed up. Anything sitting down became a challenge with these clubs. Mentally, I didn't feel confident with the soft-touch shots. I don't want to discount the clubs. I've only played them for two rounds. I think they are well made and have a great swing weight. My advice would be to consider the workability with these clubs on the shorter approach shots and around the greens. No doubt, the Callaway 3 iron was easier to hit than my Titleist, but I only hit a 3 iron maybe once or twice a round. However, I will use the 7,8,9,and PW often and I really need an iron with precision and a manageable head size for control and dependable distance. If you're into Callaway irons, check out the new forged irons they've got coming out. I think these are the one's that Mickleson is using. The have a smaller head size and less offset. I have been playing the Titleist 690mb's for 3 seasons now and I'm extremely pleased with the clubs. However, I assume that my game wouldn't vary too much with a different club. It's all in the swing.

Customer Service

I heard they are exceptional

Similar Products Used:

Titleist 690mb

OVERALL
RATING
4
VALUE
RATING
4
[Feb 14, 2005]
Worm Burner
Shoots in the 90s
Model Reviewed: Callaway X-16 Steel Shaft

Not very impressive and not overly forgiving. Unbelievably ugly @ address, too big and bulky. If you don't hit them right they still produce bad shots! The irons loft is stronger than other manufactures and shaft is longer therefore giving more distance through out the set. Irons are Very clunky, have no bouncce, and the one shaft fits all philosophy is wrong. Not really happy with the product. Now using a set of mp-32 mizuno's in R-flex and am Much happy. Not just nocking Callaway, as i have a BB 454 Driver and am impressed with it!

Customer Service

Have not dealt with them?

Similar Products Used:

Founders Fresh Metal and Mizuno mp-32

OVERALL
RATING
3
VALUE
RATING
1
[Jan 10, 2005]
TGB
Shoots in the 80s
Model Reviewed: Callaway X-16

Last year, when playing well, could break 80 with my Mizuno Sure irons, but on an average or bad day struggled to break 90. I had no confidence with the long irons. I decided to try irons with a high MPF-Maltby Playability Factor (Armour Vaults). They were forgiving, but I lost 10 yards of distance, so I went back to the Mizunos. I decided to look for a club with a high MPF and good distance, i.e. Callaway X-16. I didn't like the appearance (thick top line) but tried them anyway. WOW! I gained 5 yards of distance and they are very forgiving-I put the 3 iron back in my bag. Now my good days and bad days do not differ as much, and that makes the bad days much more fun.

Similar Products Used:

Mizuno Sure Tommy Armour Vaults

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
[Jul 07, 2004]
chaz625
Shoots in the 90s
Model Reviewed: Callaway X-16 CW Rifle

Decided to give up my older Hogans and upgrade. The swing weight (with CW rifle shafts) is slightly on the heavier side which allows me to feel the position of the club head. These clubs really get underneath the ball and launch it. The X-16's have it all... forgiveness, feel, and accuracy.

Customer Service

NA

Similar Products Used:

Titleist 762

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
[May 15, 2004]
cjcdaman
Shoots in the 70s
Model Reviewed: x-16 irons steel shaft

These are the best irons out there for decent golfers who can strike the ball well and not be a hacker. Anyone with a 15 or higher handicap should try the big bertha's. Now those clubs are amazing but if you know somewhat what you're doing in golf, go with these. Toe shots go almost as far as solidly struck golf shots.

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
[May 14, 2004]
ijha
Shoots in the 90s
Model Reviewed: Callaway x-16 iron set

Let's admit that these irons are uglier and clukier than X-14. It's also hard to get feedback. But who cares? With X-16, my shots are more accurate and consistent now. Overall, this is the best iron set I've ever had.

Similar Products Used:

Wilson Deep Red, Mizuno MX-15, Callaway X-14

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
[May 13, 2004]
pisekj
Shoots in the 90s
Model Reviewed: X-16 3-PW

Excellent irons ... from 9 to 5 no problem , 3 and 4 I replace by CPR Nike, only questionmark is my shots are too high ... thinking about preplace shafts with Rifles .... Forgiving, nice clubs ...

Customer Service

No experience, everything OK ...

Similar Products Used:

Wilson Deep Red

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
[Dec 08, 2003]
Lawrence
Shoots in the 70s
Model Reviewed: Callaway X-16

Here are the set of irons I have been searching for. This is my first set of Callaways after the last 5 seasons I played Cleveland TA-7's, Ping i3 and i3 +'s. This set is quite a nice balance of distance with proper trajectory and sizziling accuracy. The stock graphite shafts are nicely suited for my moderate smooth tempo swing. I am a 7 handicap who could hit forged blade irons, but why when this set gives such a more rounded performance. The feel when hit off the sweetspot is solid, and mis hits are quite playable. I thought it would be hard to knock the PINGS out of the bag, but this latest set of Callaway's did it. Expensive, but worth the money.

Customer Service

Not yet had to deal with Callaway Corp. as yet. The pro staff at Copelands here in Vegas were awesome and quite helpful in the sale.

Similar Products Used:

Ping i3--Ping i3+'s --Cleveland TA-7's--Hogan Apex Plus--Titleist 8022 OS.

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
[Nov 09, 2003]
deepdivot
Shoots in the 80s
Model Reviewed: X-16 Regular

Have been in the market for the last 3 months looking for a good replacement for the Ping ISI-Ks I have been using for the last 5 years. Shortlisted TaylorMade RAC-OS and the X-16s (Regular & Pro). I only use steel shafts for my irons as they are easier to work with and dont require much fine tuning. Now the choice I made - I picked RACs 5 thru LW and X-16 regulars 3-4 Irons. To justify this selection I have the following input. 1. X-16 wedges and short irons lack feel and are not suitable for controlling shots. I could not hit a single low iron no matter where I positioned the ball are altered by swing. Chipping with the wedges was a nightmare - there was NO feedback, you could swing and pray thats about it. The X-16 (Pro) has less offset but is no different from the regular version in any other department. The RACs had a better feel and were a lot more workable. 2. The long irons (Mid for some).... the X-16s gave me the benefit of being able to put the ball in air and be fairly accurate no matter how I was swinging. Since I donot want to turn pro..I needed good distance and forgiveness and found this in the X-16s. I am in the market for a new stand bag and considering the exotic cocktail in the bag I will buy a Callaway Daytripper and a Taylormade Towel..;-)

Customer Service

Hassle free online shopping

Similar Products Used:

PING ISI-K, Callaway X-14, TM-RAC-LT, Callaway BB2002.

OVERALL
RATING
3
VALUE
RATING
3
[Nov 06, 2003]
Claus1
Shoots in the 90s
Model Reviewed: Callaway X-16 Iron set

I live in Singapore but play mostly at the Ria Bintan, Ocean Course in Bintan/Indonesia. (Rated best course in Asia) I'm a 18 handicap golfer and I bought the Callaway X-16 irons at Pan West in Singapore, great service. These irons are a dream, especially my short game has improved. The ball stops dead when it hits the green! Longer shots from 120 - 160 meters are also easy to manage. I can really recommend this set for any golfer whose handicap is between 14-24. Claus

Customer Service

Pan West, Singapore. Great Service.

OVERALL
RATING
5
VALUE
RATING
5
Showing 31-40 of 76  

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.

golfreview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

Other Web Sites in the ConsumerReview Network:

mtbr.com | roadbikereview.com | carreview.com | photographyreview.com | audioreview.com