help on alternative to G&L2500

[john2718]

+1 on all of the suggestions for Ibanez. I also have small hands and spent the last month or 2 trying to find a comfortable 5er before giving up and deciding to stick with 4. A few other 5s that I found with nice narrow necks were a Stingray 5 and a Peavey Millennium AC BXP (which was kind of low budget but sounded quite nice and claimed to have the pickups and/or electronics of the higher end Peaveys).

 

[lug]

I have an SRX505 (similar to the current SRX595) and it can get plenty aggressive similar to a G&L L2500. Great neck too.

 

[tcydennis]

I was looking at the G&L, Ibanez and Warwick specs on the catalogues of their webpages.

The following are the neck width at nut:

• G&L L2500 = 44.5mm
• Ibanez SR and SRX 5ers = 45mm
• Ibanez BTB 5ers = 47mm
• Warwick 5ers = 45mm

This is strange, from my impression from glancing at the stores, the SR and SRX have a much narrower neck than the G&L L2500 that I have been playing. However the catalogues show SR's width at 45mm, which is wider than the 44.5mm of the L2500!!!

Im playing the earlier version of the L2500. Is the neck much wider for the older version, compared to the newer ones? [from G&L's review page, i know that newer version "neck features a slimmer nut width (now 1 ¾", a reduction of 1/16"), and a slimmer profile overall."]

But from my experience, L2500 still seemed much wider than the 45mm of the SRs... hmm...

 

[darkside 88]

+1 for the SRX.

 

[dgce]

I was looking at the G&L, Ibanez and Warwick specs on the catalogues of their webpages.

The following are the neck width at nut:

• G&L L2500 = 44.5mm
• Ibanez SR and SRX 5ers = 45mm
• Ibanez BTB 5ers = 47mm
• Warwick 5ers = 45mm

This is strange, from my impression from glancing at the stores, the SR and SRX have a much narrower neck than the G&L L2500 that I have been playing. However the catalogues show SR's width at 45mm, which is wider than the 44.5mm of the L2500!!!

Im playing the earlier version of the L2500. Is the neck much wider for the older version, compared to the newer ones? [from G&L's review page, i know that newer version "neck features a slimmer nut width (now 1 ¾", a reduction of 1/16"), and a slimmer profile overall."]

But from my experience, L2500 still seemed much wider than the 45mm of the SRs... hmm...

This is a good question. Any tech-heads out there that can tackle this? I'm pretty curious too. I KNOW those SR/SRX necks are slimmer than the G&L 5s. What gives?

r

 

[lug]

The measurement across the nut is not always indicative of the size of the neck. Size of the heel, depth from front to back (The SR and SRX are comparatively thin front to back) and string spacing at the bridge all play a part in percieved neck size.

 

[Jimtoonz]

+1 for lug...

The L-2500 neck is often described by many as being "thick" front to back and I would say that is accurate. It can cause the perception of greater neck width.

 

[pickles]

You could get a tribute 2k5 and have a luthier shave the neck down.