Climb X hangers?

These arrived as samples in the mail today. Are these being cranked out by Climb X? Are they legit or are they more cheap Chinese BS?

The Pitt Bull hanger has a cheap feeling sandblasted finish while the Bulldog hanger has a nice pacivated and tumbled (I think) finish.


What are your thoughts bolt geeks?

I have the meter/machine in our lab at work that will stretch it till it breaks and gives all the info on tinsel strength if you want me to try and test one

climbaxe.com/pitbullhanger.…

according to the link... yes they are being cranked out by Climb X

C.Williams wrote:Are these being cranked out by Climb X? Are they legit or are they more cheap Chinese BS?

Yes, they are climb-x, and as such, I would imagine that they are cheap Chinese BS. Based on climb-x's past hanger performance, I wouldn't trust any hanger produced by them.

For the same price you might as well go with Climb Tech.

bought plenty of those in the past....they work but are def cheapo.

FIXE and ClimbTechs are way better, but a little more $

Thanks for confirming my suspicions. I've been a huge fan of the ClimbTech hanger for a while and use it almost exclusively. That "Bulldog" hanger made me do a double take. Has anyone put these through a pull test? Any ideas why they seem to have no CE or UIAA aprovals?

Like stated before I can have the test done and give results if you'd like...

They make cheap knock offs of everything. Hence why no official rating. ClimbX has always had quality issues, I would NEVER recommend using their stuff for development.

Climb X is total crap from their product to their ethics. Avoid them like the plague. Also, there are several photos of cracked hangers all over the Internet. I would take those samples and throw them right in the trash.

basically they took their well known to be dangerous hanger, and rebranded it and are continuing to try to sell it. f'd up.
When I find ClimbX hangers in my local area, I remove them as soon as possible, and have a talk with whoever placed them. NO ONE should be risking other peoples lives over a few cents.

20 kN wrote:I would take those samples and throw them right in the trash.

Not going to toss them but I will donate them to someone with a pull test rig. See if they live up to their 25kn stamp.

You got my pm right ? I'll be looking into it tomorrow :)

I recently came across some of these in a area in Arkansas.  Did anybody do a pool test on these to see if they're any good?

Dennis Nelms wrote:

I recently came across some of these in a area in Arkansas.  Did anybody do a pool test on these to see if they're any good?

There are a bunch at Fern, right?

Dennis Nelms wrote:

I recently came across some of these in a area in Arkansas.  Did anybody do a pool test on these to see if they're any good?

Nothing official that I’ve seen. I know the early batches, the ones that are almost identical to Mad Rock in shape and finish, had problems with cracking. I believe the problem was use of very cheap stainless steel, possibly 303, but I could be wrong. I’ve run across some of ClimbX’s more recent hardware and had it tested (informally) in a metallurgy lab. The material was as stamped on the hangers (304) but that’s as far as I can comment. It probably isn’t the worst idea to pull them and replace with more reputable hardware.

C Williams wrote:

Nothing official that I’ve seen. I know the early batches, the ones that are almost identical to Mad Rock in shape and finish, had problems with cracking. I believe the problem was use of very cheap stainless steel, possibly 303, but I could be wrong. I’ve run across some of ClimbX’s more recent hardware and had it tested (informally) in a metallurgy lab. The material was as stamped on the hangers (304) but that’s as far as I can comment. It probably isn’t the worst idea to pull them and replace with more reputable hardware.

From my understanding, 303 stainless isn’t cheap steel per say. It’s only easier on the tooling during production and has negligible effects on the end user. I could be wrong. Confast used to produce a 303 stainless wedge anchor. It was cheaper on the tooling bits, so a bit cheaper for the buyer. But only by a little. I’m not aware that 303 has corrosion or strength issues though. Again, I could be wrong. “ 303 is as good as 304, Change my mind” lol…

Salamanizer Ski wrote:

From my understanding, 303 stainless isn’t cheap steel per say. It’s only easier on the tooling during production and has negligible effects on the end user. I could be wrong. Confast used to produce a 303 stainless wedge anchor. It was cheaper on the tooling bits, so a bit cheaper for the buyer. But only by a little. I’m not aware that 303 has corrosion or strength issues though. Again, I could be wrong. “ 303 is as good as 304, Change my mind” lol…

Should have said low quality 303. My basic understanding is about the same as yours, 303 is a machining grade with slightly less corrosion resistance to 304. The main differences I'm aware of are that 303 is generally unweldable, it has aprox 1% less chromium (chromium oxide being the protective layer for 300 series stainless), and added elements to enhance machinability. There are actually two grades of 303. 303Se has 0.15% selenium added, and 303 has 0.15% sulfur added. I've been told 303 (with the sulfur) is more  susceptible to corrosion cracking due to the sulfur content where as 303Se has less of an issue. The rumor is that ClimbX used low quality 303 in their initial run and their hardware suffered accelerated cracking in moderately corrosive environments. I'm just a welder with anecdotal knowledge of these things, hope someone smarter than I can chime in!

C Williams wrote:

Should have said low quality 303. My basic understanding is about the same as yours, 303 is a machining grade with slightly less corrosion resistance to 304. The main differences I'm aware of are that 303 is generally unweldable, it has aprox 1% less chromium (chromium oxide being the protective layer for 300 series stainless), and added elements to enhance machinability. There are actually two grades of 303. 303Se has 0.15% selenium added, and 303 has 0.15% sulfur added. I've been told 303 (with the sulfur) is more  susceptible to corrosion cracking due to the sulfur content where as 303Se has less of an issue. The rumor is that ClimbX used low quality 303 in their initial run and their hardware suffered accelerated cracking in moderately corrosive environments. I'm just a welder with anecdotal knowledge of these things, hope someone smarter than I can chime in!

Oh… I didn’t know there were different grades. I wonder which Confast used? Being that they are a fairly reputable company which makes and carries quality products, one would assume the better of the two. But I wouldn’t be shocked if they didn’t. 

C Williams wrote: Thanks for confirming my suspicions. I've been a huge fan of the ClimbTech hanger for a while and use it almost exclusively. That "Bulldog" hanger made me do a double take. Has anyone put these through a pull test? Any ideas why they seem to have no CE or UIAA aprovals?

Unless they are retailing within the EU then a CE stamp is n't required and certain items are exempted from having the mark appear on the product, namely anchors.