50 Words or Less
The PING Blueprint S irons deliver the quintessential players cavity back experience with classic good looks, soft feel, and excellent shot control. Significantly more forgiving than the Blueprint T.
Introduction
Over the last couple years, one of the things that has become apparent to me is the value of the classic cavity back design (thanks, Karsten). While there’s certainly value in face technology, multi-material constructions, and hollow body designs, the simple idea of pushing weight to the perimeter makes a massive difference in the performance on mishits. Having tested the Blueprint T irons [review HERE], I was very eager to see if the cavity in the PING Blueprint S irons makes these irons accessible to a wide range of players.
Looks
If you’re looking for a clean, players look at address, you’ll find it in the PING Blueprint S irons. These irons check every box: compact blade length, minimal offset, and thin top lines. The shaping of the toe and leading edge is a little softer than the Blueprint T for players who prefer a slightly more rounded appearance.
In the bag, the Blueprint S stands apart from its brother. Most obviously, there’s the cavity, but I’d also point to the ribbon of chrome finish near the sole. This is a design choice that I didn’t care for at first, but it’s grown on me. It’s the type of thing you might not register consciously at first because of the tasteful way that it’s executed. Branding is kept extremely minimal with a small “Blueprint S” near the heel and “PING” shifted to the hosel.
Above, you’ll see a comparison of the Blueprint T (left) and the Blueprint S (right). These irons are built for combo sets with specs that are nearly identical. The Blueprint S does have more offset in most of the irons, but the maximum difference is 0.03″ – a difference that I defy anyone to see with their naked eye. Additionally, the top lines and blade lengths are extremely similar. No matter where you blend your set, it will be a smooth transition.
Sound & Feel
The theme of “traditional” carries forward into the sound and feel of the PING Blueprint S irons. On center, impact feels very soft and the sound is a quiet “thud.” They also deliver excellent feedback. Your hands will know exactly where the ball met the face, and the impact sound shifts toward a “clack” as you move away from center.
I found comparing the Blueprint S to the Blueprint T to be difficult. On center, I can’t be certain if the Blueprint T irons are a little softer or if that’s just the placebo effect of hitting blades. Either way, they’re much more similar than they are different. One thing that was clear was that the feedback on mishits was less stringent in the Blueprint S. I put in my notes that the Blueprint S delivers clear feedback but sands off some of the roughness.
Performance
I’m going to discuss the performance of the PING Blueprint S irons in three ways: on their own, in comparison to the Blueprint T, and in comparison to other PING irons past and present.
Taken on their own, the Blueprint S irons are a great players cavity back. With their relatively weak lofts, they have the traditional players iron performance that goes along with their look and feel. These irons are more concerned with control and stopping power than raw distance, though they do have excellent ball speed on center. They launch the ball in a controlled, medium window with spin that’s average for this style of iron.
The most notable tech feature of the PING Blueprint S irons is the Precision-Pocket Forging in the 3, 4, and 5 irons (above, lower). This patented technique allows 10 grams of weight to be moved to the perimeter for higher MOI in the long irons where players need it most. The best compliment that I can give to this design is that I didn’t notice the transition from the 5I to the 6I. It’s not a night-and-day gap in forgiveness, but it offers a little extra help to keep your long approaches on target.
Talking about forgiveness is a good place to transition to the comparison with the Blueprint T. In my launch monitor testing, there was a clear improvement in consistency when I went from the Blueprint T to the Blueprint S. A mishit that cost me 8 yards with the T might only cost me 4 or 5 with the S. Additionally, the Blueprint S launched slightly higher with a little less spin. These were small but consistent differences for me, though other players may see different results. The landing angles were almost identical with both irons.
As you can see above, the PING Blueprint S irons do have a slightly wider sole than the Blueprint T, but it’s still well within the players category. I would certainly classify both as “thin.” Turning to shot control, I don’t feel like there’s anything that the Blueprint T can do that the Blueprint S can’t. Again, there is undeniably something magical about pure blades, but, with the possible exception of Tour-level ball strikers, I think the Blueprint S gives golfers all the ability they could want to shape shots and control trajectory.
If you’re looking for the spiritual predecessor to the Blueprint S irons, I would point to the PING iBlade [review HERE]. Both are similar in that they give you the players look and shot control without severely penalizing every misstep.
Finally, while Tour players are building combo sets with the Blueprint T and Blueprint S, we mortals might want to look in the other direction. The PING i230 irons [review HERE] have the same loft specs as the Blueprint S but offer a meaningful bump in forgiveness (I don’t think there’s a more forgiving players iron). Playing the Blueprint S in your scoring irons and the i230 in your longer irons could be a perfect balance of what the mid to low handicapper wants and needs.
Conclusion
The PING Blueprint S irons are among the elite players cavity back irons. They have the traditional looks and feel that many skilled players prefer while offering a meaningful boost in forgiveness over blades. Whether you combine them with the Blueprint T, i230, or play them on their own, this is a set that you’ll be happy to have in the bag.