Dynamic Gold AMT – Tour Issue – Golf Shaft Review

Dynamic Gold AMT Iron Shafts

By Russ Ryden and Mark Maness

Russ is the owner of Fit2Score, Dallas Fort Worth, Texas
A Golf Digest America’s 100 Best Clubfitter 


AMT stands for Ascending Mass Technology. It is not a new concept. Ping has had ascending weight shafts for many years. Nippon 999’s were ascending. Aerotech Players Spec were ascending. If you are not a club maker you probably have not been exposed to the concept. Briefly, there are primarily two kinds of shafts; constant weight tapers and parallel’s. Constant weight tapers are made to length in the factory and the shafts in the set are all the same weight even though they are different lengths. Parallels are made to one length in the factory. The club maker cuts them to the length needed for the club he is building. As they are cut shorter they weigh less. The shafts in a set are lighter in the short irons than in the long irons.  I wrote an article about this some years ago in the technical stuff section of this site; Constant Weight vs Parallel Iron Shafts.

Iron heads get heavier as the the numbers get higher. The 4 iron head is heavier than the 3 iron, the 5 iron is heavier than the 4 iron and so on down to the gap wedge. In sets made of parallel shafts, the shafts get lighter while the head gets heavier. In sets made from constant weight shafts, the shafts are the same weight while the heads get heavier. In ASCENDING WEIGHT sets, the shafts get heavier as the heads get heavier. This has always been an attraction the club builders that create MOI, Moment of Inertia, matched sets.

The technical discussion, measurements and testing results are available only to registered readers

This is a great step forward in iron shaft technology. Keep it coming, True Temper, the club building community has waited a long time for a set of iron shafts like this!

  • Andrew Wilson

    Hey Russ,

    Love the site and your YouTube channel. Thanks for all the useful info you provide to all of us equipment geeks. As for the DG AMT shafts, I’m curious what you typically do with head weights when you put someone into these shafts. Other than the PW, I see that without modifying the head weights on the Titleist MB’s the MOI was pretty constant whereas the swingweight was moderately ascending. Do you typically suggest leaving that progression as-is, or would you sometimes add tip weights in the longer irons to make the swingweights uniform? I ask because I’m going to try the X100 AMT’s in a set of Miura CB57’s. I love the standard DG’s in the shorter irons, but they are a little heavy in the long irons, especially since my irons are +1″ long. So the weight progression of the AMT makes perfect sense to me. My one concern is that I don’t want to lose the sense of where the clubhead is in the long irons. Do you see people playing sets of these that are D6+ throughout the set?

    • Mark has played heavy SW’s because of his lenghts. It was precisely why he liked the AMt’s, they lightened up his long irons. As you can see in the chart above, we got very close to an MOI match which I put more faith in that SW.

      I do add weights at times. At other times I drill holes in the bottom of hosels to remove weight when a head or two is out of sync with the remainder of the set. It is all a feely thing for the golfer. None have ever had a problem with MOI matched sets. But you do have to locate the weight/moi/sw what ever you want to call it, for your swing, that creates stable and consistent downswing releases and stable rotation or rather lack thereof, through impact.