Ballistik 52 Caliber Goal

[JR Boucicaut 3799]

Open

[Law Goalie 147]

By way of an introduction, I want to thank JR, Chadd, and everyone else whose hard work supports MSH and excellent programs like the Long-Term Review. Thanks also to Ballistik for sending out sticks not only to me but to all the other testers; it's a tremendous sign of confidence in their products. For my part, I hope this review will be useful to all concerned. I'm excited to try out the .52 Calibre chiefly because I haven't had a one-piece goalie stick in a game since my brief, ill-fated first exposure.

Previous sticks of note: Branches (wood), Christian 100 Diamond-Wrap Belfour (wood), Heaton H10 Brodeur (foam-core), TPS Response+ Whip-flex (composite), Montreal Nitro Biron, TPS Omega pro-returns (Roloson & Nabokov).

These all provided nice benchmarks for me. The Branches sticks remain the lightest I've ever used - they were like balsawood, and about as durable. The 'Diamond-Wrap' Christian remains the most durable stick I've ever seen. It has actually lasted more than a decade: two years of heavy use as a full-time practice stick that barely put a nick in it, a few years in the basement, and a few more as a backup. It will not die. The H10 Brodeur was my favourite all-around stick for a long time: good balance, light weight, good durability. It's the only foam-core stick I ever liked. The TPS Response+ was a great performer: terrific shooting properties, supremely good at deflecting and ramping shots and passes away -- until a shot caved the paddle in. This was not a stick that wore down: it was a single catastrophic failure in response to a common impact. I used it for coaching until it snapped in half at the paddle, since I loved the way it shot, but I swore I'd never put another composite stick in a game situation. The Montreal Nitro is an incredible piece of engineering, combining the shooting ability of a composite with the durability of wood, but dear god it's expensive. The TPS Omega pro-returns are beautiful solid ash sticks reinforced with aramid and fibreglass strips along the edges of the blade and paddle; they wear like iron. I've averaged about a year per pair of these. They've been by far my best stick experience to date. That said, I'm very much looking forward to giving composite sticks another spin.

Now, on to the .52 Cal...

[Law Goalie 147]

FIRST-LOOK & FEEL

The Ballistik arrived a couple of days ago, very well-wrapped. This bodes well for anyone who orders custom sticks direct from Ballistik. There was, however, a very small chip out of the top of the blade. It was shallow, and about the size of the head of a Q-tip. I took the liberty of filling this in with a dollop of gel epoxy, so that this damage wouldn't negatively influence the review.

I was immediately impressed with the simple, slick black and silver appearance of the .52 Cal, but my wife's reaction was more telling: she absolutely loved it. This is a woman who regards hockey equipment with no small disdain, and rolls her eyes at almost anything I bring home. It's the most visually appealing goalie stick I've ever seen.

I noticed that this is actually a .52 Calibre SE, which is a slight and noticeable graphical improvement on the original. It just looks a little more refined overall.

A few notes on the design of the stick--

CURVE: the only listed goalie curve for Ballistik is the "MC", which apparently stands for "Modano Clone." I thought this would be ideal, as the one thing that has remained more or less consistent across all my sticks is my curve: I've always had a mild, slightly open mid-heel curve, ie. Modano for goalies. However, the Ballistik MC curve really opens up toward the toe - something I've never liked in a goalie stick - and is a much deeper curve than I'm used to. While this may aid in lifting long forehand clears to the glass, it may also make quick, hard flat passes on forehand and backhand - the bread and butter of a goalie's puck-handling - a little less reliable for me at first. I mention this (and similar points) only to illustrate what may bias my review.

BLADE PROFILE: the other curiosity is that there is almost no rocker on the blade of the .52 Cal - it's almost perfectly flat along the bottom. My previous sticks have had relatively pronounced rockers, so this will be another adjustment for me.

FLEX: not indicated on the stick or website. It is, however, *much* stiffer than a TPS whip-flex goalie stick and considerably stiffer than my TPS Omegas. The 52. Cal is in fact the stiffest stick I've ever used; the only one that was even close is my old Christian battle-axe, and I was never that thrilled with the way it shot. I love whippy sticks; I even use 65-flex Mission M-2 shafts when I coach. This isn't a size or strength issue (I'm a reasonably big guy), but sheer personal preference. The other point of interest (literally) is the kick-point. It's noticeably higher than my other sticks, roughly two-thirds of the way up the paddle. Most wood and foam-core sticks flex right in the middle of the paddle, and my previous experience with the TPS Response was that its kickpoint was lower down the paddle, much like a tapered shaft. I'm interested to see how this plays out.

PADDLE SHAPE: this can vary more than one might think, from a very square-shouldered paddle that comes out of the shaft almost at 90-degrees, to a very sloped approach, to any number of asymmetries, including a wide range of notched trigger-grips. The Ballistik design is interesting, in that it's very tapered at the paddle, but far more on the lateral side than the medial. It feels nice enough in the hand; I'll have to see how it plays.

SIZING: Ballistik offers three paddle sizes, 25", 26" and 27" - all at a 14 lie. I chose the shortest. Paddle-sizing is, as a rule, absurdly esoteric. At retail, a TPS marked at 27" may be nearly the same height as a 24" Sherwood. There is, however, a method used by the NHL to limit paddle-size, as ably depicted by our very own Justin Herman:

The Ballistik 25" measures out to 26 1/4" on this scale, significantly taller than the 24 3/4" paddle at 13.5 lie on the Roloson pro-return Omegas and the 25 1/4 paddle at 14 on Nabokov's. It's the tallest paddle I've used in a while, and I felt the Nabokov was a little bit tall already. The shaft is a little shorter than Nabokov's and a bit taller than the Roloson's, for what it's worth.

I'll discuss the sizing of the stick in some detail in my next post, as it's a distinct and rather tricky issue for 'tenders.

SHAFT: the shaft is very slightly concave, which should provide a subtle difference in feel. I like it so far.

WEIGHT: Ballistik lists the 52. Cal at 675 grams. Frankly, it felt no lighter than my wood sticks, at least in my hand. My wife, however, insisted that the .52 Cal felt much lighter to her.

BALANCE: the balance of the Ballistik, like most composite goalie sticks, is decidedly blade-heavy. This is not actually a bad thing for goalies, since it helps to maintain the stick on the ice (where it should almost always remain) and adds a slightly more positive feel in redirecting shots. The balance-point was about eight inches below the shoulder of the paddle; for reference, my TPS Omegas balance about four inches down the paddle.

TAPING: I tape my sticks rather heavily, which is part of the reason I get such good life out of them. First, a strip of electrical tape around the bottom of the blade, coming up over the toe and a few inches along the top of the blade. This helps to prevent chipping, and to keep moisture out of wood blades. Next, I put a layer or two of black stick-tape over the tip of the toe - again, toe keep it from getting chipped or cracked. I follow this with a full sock of wide tape, taping toe to heel. I finish with another 'runner' of tape along the bottom of the blade, wrapping up over the toe, a quick buff with Sno-Seal silicon beeswax and some Tournagrip on the handle.

Excessive?-- probably, but it keeps sticks durable enough to avoid becoming a totally sunk cost.

Ordinarily, I would also use gel epoxy to spot-fix any chips or cracks in a composite material, but for the purposes of this review, the only further maintenance I'll perform on the stick will be regular retaping.

[Law Goalie 147]

FIRST ON-ICE USE

I took the stick out for one of my regular icetimes. I got to skate by myself on an empty sheet for a solid hour, just fooling around with the stick in some rudimentary movement and puck-handling drills. This was followed by a couple of hours of decent pick-up.

FEEL

My initial on-ice impression was very positive: as I ran through a series of movement drills, the stick felt light and balanced. As I continued working it disappeared into my hand, which is exactly what I want a stick to do. I was a bit surprised at this, given the number of small but not insignificant differences with my usual sticks: a very favourable impression.

STICK SAVES

Given the propensity for shinny players to favour wide open shots and sniping for corners rather than low point-shots and under-pressure one-timers, I didn't face a great many hard, low shots. The few I did take were all ramped away to the corner glass with remarkable effectiveness: the thin, stiff blade of the .52 Cal did a great job of directing the force of the shot aside. On the three shots that were hard and low direct to the five hole, I was able to ramp the puck away reasonably well, but each time, the same thing happened: the plastic plug popped out of the top of the shaft. This was quite annoying. I'm going to drill a very small hole in the plug to prevent this in future.

PASS DEFLECTION

Though this could be classed under 'Stick Saves', I do consider it a separate skill (since the passes are by definition not on goal, requiring different positioning and movement). Ordinarily, I try to get my stick on any pass that comes anywhere near the crease, no matter where it's coming from; and because shinny brings out the over-passing instincts in certain players as surely as it does danglitis in others, I had plenty of opportunities to test this. The .52 Cal gave me the best performance in deflecting passes I've ever had: its blade is so thin and stiff that any pass it so much as clipped was angled off and ramped up and out of harm's way, or at least into the teeth of the guy parked in front of the net. One of the problems with having a very active stick is that this can, sometimes, have disastrous consequences. If a pass that a goalie tries to ramp away hits the bottom of the blade and 'sticks' to it, the goalie is by definition out of position and vulnerable to a quick tap-in - that is, if the goalie doesn't actually tip the puck back into his own net, as we've all seen happen. This was a problem I had sometimes experience not only with my wood sticks (which need to be thicker through the blade, especially at the heel, in order to maintain stiffness) but in several other composite sticks as well. It has lead me to be somewhat more cautious with my stick engagement than I'd like. After only an hour with the .52 Cal, I was completely confident in reaching out for any pass, knowing that the blade would do its job - a confidence that overthrew years of careful trepidation. It was a wonderful experience.

DURABILITY

The single greatest weakness of composite goalie sticks - and the primary reason I've never used them regularly - is the frequency with which they break when hit in the paddle with hard shots. I'm happy to report that I took two such hard shots, a couple of skate-stomps, a few paddle-down whack-fests around the net, and the various battery of my 'active stick' play - and the .52 Cal handled them all beautifully. There are a few small chips out of the clearcoat, but the stick is still 100% structurally sound.

NB: I'm not a compulsive post-tapper (I just touch off on the short-side post with the appropriate glove), so any and all damage to the stick is going to be the result of actual gameplay, not ritual abuse.

STICK-HANDLING

During a few puck-handling drills and the handful of times during the shinny when I had a chance to handle the puck - not much call for dump-and-chase at pickup - I felt I had an extremely good feel for the puck. This was, in fact, a major improvement on my previous sticks, and as good or better than my player sticks: very impressive.

FLAT PASSES

The bread and butter of any goalie's puckhandling. This felt relatively inconsistent, which I put down to my lack of expensive with the curve, blade profile and stiffness of the stick. A few times, I was able to snap hard, accurate passes off quickly and satisfactorily; a few times, the puck came off the blade oddly, either jumping up unexpectedly or going way off target. I'll need to take some more time to adjust. My suspicion is that the stiffness is the biggest issue, and the one I would most like to see changed in the stick.

CLEARS (eg. shooting for blue-line glass)

This was an odd one; again inconsistent, but tending more to the unsuccessful end of things. At times I was able to get off extremely strong shots; at others, I completely misfired and the puck dribbled away. Some of this I can put down to a curve I'm not used to, but I suspect much of it has to do with the flex, and with the kind of grip ones uses - which I'll discuss subsequently. When I put my mind to it, I could usually force a good shot off, but it never felt comfortable.

FLIPS/LOBS

The thinness of the blade allowed me to really get under the puck and get it into the rafters a couple of times; a couple of other times, the curve and profile threw me off. Very promising overall, and a major improvement on the relatively thick blades I've been used to. I think once I'm used to the curve, I've be able to land long flips with reasonable accuracy, which is something I could do reliably with my Rolosons, but not with the Nabokovs; it seems to be a very sensitive skill, not to mention a high-risk play.

BACKHAND

The rather deep curve did make backhands problematic. If I really concentrated I could aim a decent flat pass or get some power behind it and some air under it, but it took a great deal more focus than I was used to. It was rather the opposite effect that I first described: the stick, which had previously disappeared so nicely into my hands became a bit of a problem to deal with.

TURCO vs. REGULAR GRIP

The .52 Cal performed much, much better using the Turco-style overhand grip (similar to a centre's reverse grip on a faceoff) than a regular grip with the trapper. My guess is that this has partly to do with my own shooting mechanics, but also with the design of the stick. A stiffer stick requires more effort to flex, and it's much, much easier to generate that downward pressure to flex the stick with a Turco grip. And who better to demo the grip than Marty himself?...

While I do generally use the Turco grip when playing the puck, as it's much better to the backhand and for keeping the puck low (options which should be available in all situations), I have usually turned to a traditional grip to get the best power on my forehand and the most height on my lobs. I'll certainly try to get my regular grip working with the .52 Cal, but generally speaking, I think I'll take this as an opportunity to really work on my overhand shooting.

Overall, I suspect I would be much, much happier with a shallower curve and a much lower flex. That being said, I'll continue to work with the stick because I think it has tremendous promise. It's far and away the best experience I've had with a composite goalie stick.

(edited to add a missing section)

I'll also try to go out of my way to throw a few poke-checks in the next skate; for some odd reason, I didn't get a chance to last time. The hockey gods made sure everyone who cut to the net had their heads up and no backside pressure whatsoever. The reason I mention poke-checks specifically is that, apart from being a fairly standard but oft-misused move, mine has given me trouble lately, with two hard, accurate pokes resulting in pucks that flipped up, rolling along my arm, over my shoulder and into the net. It'll also give the stick a good chance to have someone fall on it.

[Law Goalie 147]

I had to skip my Friday skate because of a nagging ankle injury, but did get the stick into a 'game' on Sunday. Unfortunately the opponent didn't show - not one guy - so we had an extra practise: mostly continuous small-area 3v3, which is bloody exhausting for a goalie, let me tell you.

Since everything was quite contained, there were few times when I can really load up on a clear or fire off a long pass, but many opportunities for quick stick involvement.

One of the nicest things about the stiffness of the .52 Cal's blade is how quickly the puck springs off it, both in redirecting shots and in one-touch shooting. The four or five times that I had occasion to take a couple of steps out of the net to get a touch on the puck, the stick responded beautifully, snapping the puck away from the forecheck with authority. The stiffness and high kick-point made shooting from the butterfly (another Turco trick) a little more difficult than I was used to, and without quite the same power behind it, but the results were just fine for a quick snapshot. Whether in shooting or saving, it seems like whatever energy the puck carries into the blade springs right back off it, whether in being ramped away or in getting snapped to the glass; it's in shooting from a standstill that I still don't (personally) like the stiff flex. Something of a trade-off, and not a bad one, perhaps, overall: it bears consideration.

While I would still prefer a shallower curve, I'm beginning to adapt enough to the MC curve to have some confidence in my backhands with it; I even got a chance to throw a one-handed slap-backhand (a rarely seen but effective tool for any goalie), and it ripped off the boards quite nicely. As Ogie noted in his review of the player stick, the notable lack of rocker on the blade has been zero problem so far. Whatever my personal preferences may be, this is a very well-designed blade shape.

I also got to make a lot of short arm-length poke-checks and a couple of longer ones, all of which came off beautifully. I love the way this stick handles down-low, in-tight plays. The shape and finish of the shaft allow it to slide quickly through the blocker palm when I want to extend, but still feels very secure on the paddle when jamming the blade into an attacker's stick and feet to get at a shielded puck. The .52 Cal just feels lovely in the hand.

Where I'm really struggling is with the paddle height and lie. It's not a huge change to go up an inch and down a lie, but it's screwing with my blocker position just enough to cause my stick to shift unpredictably when I butterfly, especially when transitioning from stance to butterfly slide to my left. I think I'm going to keep it out of games for the foreseeable future.

The only other minor annoyance is the blasted cap, which popped off *again* from a shot - this time to its demise, as it was stepped on and crushed. I'm going to have to find some way to seal up the end of the shaft so that I don't bayonet some poor undergraduate who falls on my butt-end.

This brings me to a theoretical question: is there any structural advantage to keeping a composite stick - especially a goalie stick - pressurized? If there is, I'll happily epoxy another end-cap in there, or cap it with some HD 80 foam.

Apart from that small issue, durability has been admirable. The blade shows absolutely no damage, and the paddle has only one shallow skate-cut and a few chips, none of which are deeper than the paint. It should be noted that all of these chips are on the edges of the paddle, where, as most one-piece wielding goalies bemoan, most such sticks are painfully prone to cracking. So I stress that the damage to the .52 Cal remains at present entirely cosmetic, and not even noticeable on that account unless you're up-close and personal with the stick.

edit: a further note on durability...

There was one particular shot I feel I should single out, because the stick handled it so well. Pretty standard set-up: cycle out of the corner pulls the D out of position, allowing a nice sharp pass across the slot to the low circle for a one-timer. My butterfly slide was far enough behind the pass that I knew a passive butterfly wouldn't get there in time to fill the angle, so I extended into what some call the 'one-pad stack', others the 'European Y', with the torso lowering to the ice to open the hips with the frontside leg thrown out and the frontside arm stacked on top of it - which in this case meant my blocker and the paddle of my sick stacked on the pad. The one-timer hit the .52 Cal smack in the middle of the paddle, where I've seen so many one-piece goalie sticks caved in before. Result: one small black smudge.

[placeholder for pic]

The stick stayed firm in my hand, the paddle didn't twist, there were no vibrations or stinging, and the puck just popped off into the corner. Perfect.

[Law Goalie 147]

I've had a few games recently, with some interesting experiences.

Game 1: started with the .52 Cal in warmups, and something just felt off. The change in hand position caused by a taller paddle and change in lie was really screwing me up; it felt like my blocker was out of place in my stance, stick movements to the blocker-side were off, and my butterfly wasn't coming together at all well. I switched back to my TPS Nabokov Omega, and everything felt perfect - just not as good. That's borderline incoherent, so let me explain.

The .52 Cal is a far better performer than the Omega, which has been by far my favourite wood stick. It shoots better, handles shots better, looks better, the works. The problem is that it just doesn't suit me as well as the Nabokov pattern, which is as close to an ideal fit as I've ever had. It's a bit like the difference between buying an RLPL suit off the rack, or having a small local tailor make one bespoke. One may have all the attributes in the world, it may play better for you, but it'll never fit you as well.

The game was a shutout: not many real scoring chances, but a lot of scrambly play late-game around the net, requiring a lot of butterfly work, stick involvement, paddle-down transitions, etc., all of which felt as comfortable as ever with my trusty old woodie There were a couple of decent low, hard point-shots that I put to the glass, but the deflection wasn't as crisp or positive as with the .52 Cal.

Game 2: same process, warming up with the .52 Cal, then switching to the Nabokov. The weight really is a non-issue. I *want* to love the Ballistik. Imagine a gorgeous, intelligent, sophisticated woman with a huge family fortune who's madly in love with you - but you just can't bring yourself to enjoy her company, let alone like or love her. To the boy, this is an insoluble problem; to the man, this is a challenge to answer.

Game 3: same process, but I decided to force the issue and let the .52 Cal play. It wasn't my regular league, but a sub-game for some friends in the DTMHL. Turns out they could only put nine guys on the ice, against the top team in the division, who hadn't lost in 14 games. Probably had about 40 shots, roughly 20 of which were premium scoring chances and another 10 of which were pretty damn good scoring chances -- so a pretty tough test.

Overall, I was pretty pleased. I didn't get to handle the puck much, since the opponent figured out they wouldn't need to dump and chase about 90 seconds in, and our guys were too tired to go for a stretch pass; the few times I did, I was able to handle it cleanly. A couple were worth singling out. One was a fast rolling puck that came curling in through the face-off circle; I was able to settle it down in a one-handed stretch, pull it in, and backhand it off the boards behind the net to my D coming in; a bit of a puck-handling challenge, and I was able to pull it off without having to think about it. Felt great. The second was one where a little cross-ice chip into the corner was going to turn into a 2-on-1 down low with a trailer coming in, thanks to my team's tired legs and a bad change. I had to sprint to the corner, and got there just as the their forechecker did. We both had our sticks on the puck, and, incredibly, I was able to outmuscle him for it and get it back up the boards.

Unfortunately, the pattern (*not* the stick, mind you) also cost me three goals. Two were deadly shots, 14" low-blocker just inside the post, that I'm usually capable of picking off at this level of play -- but my hand position was thrown off just enough to baffle the move to cover it. The other was a 2-on-1: as the pass came across, I knew it was going to be a one-touch, so I threw a passive butterfly at the blade of the guy's stick - and somehow the puck dribbled between my knees along the ice. Why?-- because the blade of the stick had been levered out of position as I brought my arms in to seal up the 6 and 7 holes. That goal put them up 2-1 with 10.6s left in the first, after weathering the attack all period. Ended up losing 5-2. Ugh.

The *one* aspect of this stick's design that I have finally decided I do not like (and I don't include sizing issues, as above, under the banner of design) is asymmetrical design of the shoulders of the paddle. Tapering the lateral shoulder (that is, to the outside of the stick when held in the right hand) has made the stick harder to grip with the index finger extended down the paddle.

As a result, if my grip shifts a little, the index finger can slide up the shoulder into a 'round' grip, which I find far less secure and less comfortable.

Nonetheless, I renew my vow to fall in love with this stick; it has so much to offer.

Two other quick notes:

1) I replaced the lost stock end-cap (which had popped off repeatedly and was eventually crushed) with an Easton cap I found lying around. It fit much more securely in the top of the shaft, and hasn't popped off once. Maybe I just got a slightly under-spec cap.

2) The durability of the .52 Cal remains remarkable. The edges of the paddle are beginning to show wear, with a fair amount of chipping to the outer layer but NOTHING deeper than that - and none of this damage is visible unless under close inspection. This stick is aging more gracefully than any composite stick I've ever seen - goalie or otherwise. The blade and shaft are still perfect, partly due to my excessive tape-job but mainly due to the stick's inherent virtue, and its seeming absence of inherent vice (if you'll pardon the Pynchonian pun on maritime law).

[Law Goalie 147]

Prior posts updated with pics; more to come.

[Law Goalie 147]

The last six weeks have seen a four-week layoff due to injury, and then a sudden burst of more hockey in a two-week period than I've had since I was in my teens.

The .52 Cal. continues to impress not only myself, but everyone who sees it. I have never - I repeat, never - had such confidence in a one-piece composite goalie stick. I do not count my pro-stock Montreal Nitro in that category: it had a composite shaft, but a wood paddle and blade that were only reinforced with composite materials.

Montreal had been my previous Gold Standard in the composite goalie stick department. I had thought that the combination of wood and composites (which, I know, could in total be called a composite, but bear with my distinction) was the best possible one for a goalie stick combining the shooting properties of a composite shaft with the durability and reliability of a wood paddle and blade. I did, however, wish that the blade of the Montreal had been composite, and only the paddle wood: I saw great promise in the idea of an extremely thin, rigid, responsive blade for goaltending, and liked what I saw in their professional use.

The .52 Cal. has now taken up that banner. My peculiarities about paddle shape, sizing, flex, and curve notwithstanding, this is far and away the best stick I have ever used. Simply put, it had all the advantages of a one-piece composite stick with NONE of the widely assumed disadvantages. Combat (né Ballistik) have worked with True Temper to produce a perfectly designed one-piece goalie stick. The .52 Cal. is now the benchmark of excellence.

After my long layoff to nurse damaged bursae in my ankles and a nagging MCL strain, I had to play five games in seven days, plus two three-hour shinny games, and I've just found out that my playoffs start this Thursday, rather than a week from now. I used the .52 Cal. exclusively in the shinny, and finally got it into a friendly against Tory's. I finally found a way to adjust my stance to accommodate the paddle height during the shinny, and after a good warm-up for the game, I decided to let it ride. I could not have been more pleased with the result from the stick's perspective. Everything went smoothly - that is until I completely muffed the puck in the corner and gave away the goal that put us down 3-2. Not the stick's fault; I imagined the stick talking to me with palpable disdain in HAL's voice, saying, "It could only be attributable to human error." For shame. For the purposes of this review, however, this was an excellent test: in sheer frustration, I forgot myself, and smashed the .52 Cal. over the crossbar, right in the middle of the edge of the paddle. Only the second time in my life for an outburst like that. As soon as I realised what I'd done, I cringed; not a mark to be found on the stick. It took a few good shots after that, and released a few long bombs of its own, seemingly having shrugged off that classic moment of mindless netminding frustration.

I would update the pictures, but there's really nothing to update: some invisible chips out of the clearcoat and a few nearly invisible chips through the black paint, neither of which can be seen without considerable scrutiny. Every goalie I show it to is impressed with how good it looks, and then stunned by how long I've been using it.

Now, after all that talk about adjustment, I did go back to my TPS Omegas for the last two league games, and they did feel like slipping into a nice old pair of deck shoes, and I did play better generally. Could have been all in my head; could have been a more agreeable pattern.

All things considered, if the .52 Cal. were available 1" shorter in the paddle, I'd buy it at retail without hesitation. All of the other minor less-than-desirable features I would learn to deal with if the paddle height was right for me. That, believe me, is saying something: I am incredibly picky about my paddles, curves and flexes.

[Law Goalie 147]

Having put the .52 Cal. through the MSH Summer Jam a couple of days ago, this seems like a good point to update the LTR. Here's a shot from the game, as I telescoped out toward a developing play through the neutral zone:

(Credit to fastmiele for the photo, and to Reebok/Lefebvre for the demo Revoke Senior Pro pads and gloves.)

As you can see, it still looks new. That is a bloody miracle of engineering and design: that a seven-month old one-piece composite goalie stick is still in action, let alone in one piece, is impressive, but this thing is like some incredible puck-stopping hybrid of Bruce Willis in Unbreakable and Wilde's Dorian Grey.

There is one very, VERY small aesthetic point which the above picture brings out: the 'B' of 'BALLISTIK' is so high up the paddle that it is obscured by the blocker. This would partially prevent the recognition of the stick by other players and goalies. Presumably, the rebranding to Combat will eliminate this problem (it's a shorter name) but it is something to monitor.

The stick continues to perform and impress exactly as it did on Day 1. I still find the pattern sub-optimal, but I continue to use the stick in non-critical games because its benefits *almost* outweigh the fact that the paddle is the wrong height for me, etc. The addition of a blue Tackimac Small-Butt Wrapped Grip has been icing on the cake.

In summation, my review could only have been made more positive by the satisfaction of a few quibbles of personal preference. However, should anyone share them, I understand that Combat offers a very robust and competitively-priced custom stick program. The curve selections may be limited, but things like lie, paddle size and shape should be readily adaptable to any user. I can only give the .52 Cal. the highest possible recommendation to anyone looking to buy a one-piece goalie stick, or any goalie stick whatsoever. It should be bought without hesitation.

I've also had the chance to pass the stick on to two other goalies for short-term tests of their own.

---

Goalie A is relatively accomplished, having attended several high-level goalie camps (namely McGuire's in Toronto) and settled into A-level recreational hockey. He had previously used one-piece composite sticks (mostly mid-level price-point ones bought at retail), and despite having broken several over the preceding months, still had one in decent for the purposes of comparison.

Goalie A's immediate impression was somewhat hesitant - he didn't know the company, and though he liked the look of the stick, he wasn't entirely enthusiastic. This changed as soon as the pickup game started. He proceeded to play one of the better games I've seen from him, and was unusually active with his stick both near the goalmouth and in handling the puck outside his net. Upon finishing the game, one of his defenceman skated up to me and said, "Good luck getting that stick back from him!" He'd been raving about it to anyone who would listen the entire game.

When I talked to Goalie A in the lockerroom, his review was superlative. He said he was quickly impressed with the feel of the stick, saying it felt "more solid" and "higher quality" than his previous one-piece composites, especially in taking hard shots off the blade and paddle. He explained that since he had been buying one-piece composites, largely for their weight, balance and shooting properties, he had become extremely gun-shy about using an active stick, and in fact tried to keep his stick out of the play as much as possible. The .52 Cal. simply felt better in his hand, and his hesitation vanished. He expressed complete incredulity when I told him the stick was, by then, six months old; most of his had lasted only a few weeks and a handful of icetimes before showing signs of serious cosmetic and structural damage. All in all, he was blown away by the stick, and completely sold on its quality after only two hours on the ice. He told me his next stick would be a .52 Cal.: enough said.

---

Goalie B is a late-starter in hockey, having only played for about two years. He only plays pickup on his days off, and doesn't handle the puck much, but is capable of handling moderate competition and looks forward to joining a league. He had never previously used a one-piece composite goalie stick, and was very interested to try one.

Goalie B's first take was enthusiastic. He found the .52 Cal. considerably lighter and its balance much better than his old foam-core wood sticks. There was some difficulty adjusting from the rebound characteristics of a foam-core (which deaden very well) to those of a composite (which acts like a thin, hard, very efficient ramp), but a minor adjustment to his stick-position in his stance and a quick instruction had him ramping pucks to the back glass in no time. He was so enthused with the stick, in fact, that he uncharacteristically raced out of his net to play several pucks he would normally have left alone.

His post-skate review confirmed a wholly positive opinion. Though his comments were less in-depth than Goalie A's, due to lack of comparable experience, he too felt extremely confident in the stick, and adored its feel in any and all game situations. We talked at some length about improving his puck-handling, passing and shooting to take advantage of the .52 Cal. - something he had previously considered 'too advanced' for him. The stick seemed to exude nothing but superior quality, and to imbue its users with a real sense of authority in its use.

---

I may update this review at the one-year mark, but to be frank, the .52 Cal. has so greatly impressed me, and so far exceeded my expectations, that any further comment would be just a repetition of those praises already expressed. My compliments to Combat (née Ballistik) for crafting a superior goalie stick, and for having the courage of their marketing convictions in submitting to MSH's LTR program: it passed with first-class honours, in my opinion.