Not sure if people saw my other thread but I ended up buying an Atomic Hatchet board.
Im 6'2''...195 and most likely wear a size 12 boot when I get new ones. I will go to a park occasionally but will mostly spend time on the slopes.
Can you guys break down the pros/cons of each binding? From what I gather the Arsenal are stiffer which might be better for my style. Though, the 390's might be a little more customizable and better/more comfortable in the long run.
I use them with a Rome Slash 158, and Salamon F22's (which i cannt speak highly enough of). The 390's are awesome, not once was I bothered by them, they r comfy, and hold your foot in all the right places.
Arsenals are better on the mountain than 390's. I've tried both. The 390's had too much flex for me. They tread that line between park and mountain without committing to either completely. The Arsenal bindings felt much better on the mountain. The 390's are more expensive and have more customizations, but they are by no means a better binding all around.
arsenals are a lower end binding. 390's are foot sex, but for all mountain get the targas. They are as nice as the 390s but a little stiffer
not correct whatsoever....even your edit isnt really right though, they are just made for a different purpose then the 390s. you may have had bad luck with the quality of your though? my buddy got his in the middle of last year and broke a 2$ plastic strap but they were fine other then that...
well if you are looking for an extremely stiff binding, then the arsenals are a great choice. especially for how cheap last years are going for, they are on whiskey militia once in a blue moon for 49.99$...