Titleist iron
The Titleist 804.OS Iron Set is an iron in 10 options from 19°–50°.
Image not published
Titleist iron
Image not published
The field is every iron in the database that publishes both of the chart's figures — every brand, not just Titleist.
This set's 7-iron is 34° — 86th percentile, weaker-lofted than 86% of the 889 sets that publish one. The median is 32°.
Loft at each club in the set over the middle half (p25–p75) of every comparable iron set on record — the busiest rung here is built from 900.
A break in the line is a club the set does not publish a loft for — it is never bridged, because joining across a gap would draw a loft the manufacturer never stated. Every brand's name for the gap wedge is pooled into one rung, since only 25 of 917 sets publish two of them.
Titleist 804.OS Iron Set · 7 Iron
The 7-iron of every comparable iron set on record publishing both loft and lie — 889 of them, binned by density.
Titleist 804.OS Iron Set · 7 Iron — the leading edge sits behind the line of the shaft by the published figure, drawn to the scale marked and seen from the toe, which is the one view that shows offset truly: it runs perpendicular to the face, so a picture square to the face would have it pointing at you. The outline is a nominal iron — this database holds no head geometry — so the gap the arrow spans is the only measured thing in the frame. The dashed edge is the median of the 7-iron of 580 iron sets on record that publish one.
Titleist's published offset at each club, over the middle half (p25–p75) of every comparable set on record that publishes one.
A break in the line is a club the set does not publish an offset for — it is never bridged, because joining across a gap would draw an offset the manufacturer never stated. Every brand's name for the gap wedge is pooled into one rung, since only 25 of 917 sets publish two of them.
What this record publishes. Across 10 options: loft, lie, length and swingweight on every one.
10 rows, unsorted, collapsed — use the button below the table to show every option.
| 19 | 2 Iron | 59 | 0.3 | 39.5 | D2 |
| 21.5 | 3 Iron | 60 | 0.28 | 39 | D2 |
| 24 | 4 Iron | 61 | 0.26 | 38.5 | D2 |
| 27 | 5 Iron | 62 | 0.24 | 38 | D2 |
| 30 | 6 Iron | 62.5 | 0.22 | 37.5 | D2 |
| 34 | 7 Iron | 63 | 0.205 | 37 | D2 |
| 38 | 8 Iron | 63.5 | 0.18 | 36.5 | D2 |
| 42 | 9 Iron | 64 | 0.16 | 36 | D2 |
| 46 | PW | 64 | 0.14 | 35.75 | D2 |
| 50 | GW | 64 | 0.12 | 35.5 | D2 |
Head geometry doesn't change with the shaft, so it's stated once. A blank cell means Titleist did not publish that figure — we don't estimate.
Where this club's published fitting specs sit among comparable clubs — never how good it is.
| Figure | Published | All irons | 2004 | Among its peers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strongest-lofted 7-iron | 34° | =677th of 953 | too few comparable clubs to place | =52nd of 124 Titleist irons · =224th of 237 mid-handicap irons |
| Most offset at the 7-iron | 0.205" | =34th of 583 | too few comparable clubs to place | =1st of 85 Titleist irons · =9th of 145 mid-handicap irons |
| Widest loft range | 31° | =496th of 1,104 | too few comparable clubs to place | =46th of 129 Titleist irons · =122nd of 237 mid-handicap irons |
| Most upright lie | 63° | =33rd of 941 | too few comparable clubs to place | =1st of 124 Titleist irons · =7th of 233 mid-handicap irons |
| Longest | 37" | =265th of 894 | too few comparable clubs to place | =1st of 115 Titleist irons · =74th of 227 mid-handicap irons |
This iron reads as built for a mid-handicap player — our deterministic reading of 7-iron offset 0.205", 7-iron loft 34° (traditional players loft). A design classification, not a rule about who may play it. How the bands are read →
Or go straight to a comparison: vs TaylorMade R7 XD Iron Set · vs Cleveland CG1 Tour Iron Set · vs Cobra S3 Irons
Other Titleist irons on record. Nothing here is a ranking or a recommendation. Browse every club →
2 of 3 parts of this club page are built, and we're filling in the rest.
The site is in beta and the database is still being built, so expect gaps. Know something we don't? Help us fill it in — a link to where it's published is worth more than anything else you could send.