fluoro tippet sizes
from what i have read, fluoro carbon line is invisible to the fish. if this is true, then what is the advantage to using 6x tippet over 4x. the reason for my question is right now i carry with me fluoro tippet material from 2x thru 7x. other than the smaller diameter being able to fit thru the eye of smaller hooks, is their really an advantage to using the smaller diameter material.
should i maybe just carry 3x and not worry about the fish being leader shy since they cant see the leader anyway.
Although I've heard the same claim about fluoro being invisible, I don't think that entirely true in all water / light conditions. However in any case, a lighter tippet will
a) be limper and allow a small fly to drift more naturally
b) sink faster since it has less water resistance
That said, I only carry 5x fluoro which I use for almost all my nymph fishing and most of my dry fly fishing. I use larger mono for streamers and large dry flies and smaller mono for very small dry flie.
What John Stoeckel said and I only go down to 6X tippet and virtually never use it, usually 5X is as small as I go for dry fly and for nymphing I usually use 4X or 3X depending upon the water clarity and which river I am fishing. Larry ---sagefisher---
The "invisibility" trait is just marketing. It is just not as visible as monofilament, but is still quite visible. Best used in my mind for nymphing and I see no reason why you should buy those dinky 30yd spools. Just buy straight fishing line down to whatever strength you like. I really like Maxima Fluorocarbon, and I have it down to 2#, which I very rarely use.
I believe that the smaller the diameter, the faster a weighted fly will sink. When fishing BH midge pupa/larva patterns under an indicator, I want that fly down in the zone Quick! I mostly fish such midges on 6X, but in gin clear tailwaters in winter, it seems 7X to have a slight advantage on 22 and smaller sz midge patterns. That is why I spring for the pricier Seagar or Froghair flouro tippet on 6 and 7x.
aa
US Veteran and concerned citizen
This line invisibility notion has been kicked around and debated upon and claims made just short of any guarantee. I've heard that color was the major factor ... low-vis green, blue tinted, mixture of the blue with clear, just plain clear. One time I heard a distributor rep claim that (new at the time) a Shakespeare red mono line (called "Cajun Line") was absolutely invisible to fish. Tried it and I did not find it so, in fact it was just the opposite, my catch ratio dropped off. The good thing about the red line is that I could see it while it was just under the surface of the water! I've heard tell the ONLY time line can be invisible to the fish is while in salt water.
Makes sense to me that the thinner the tippet the better (at least for trout) and I think most of my experience has proved that to be so. Bluegill and bass are not all that concerned and here I mostly just use a 5' mono leader (18#) and tie on a 3' length of 6# mono for a tippet; works just fine for what I do. One time I picked up a spool (250 yds) of 4# mono advertised as a "trout line" .... well, four bucks, and I bought it for the bluegill fishing - the stuff is .008" dia. Well, it turns out one time I went into the mountains for trout and forgot the regular fluoro tippet material (4X/5X) but did have the 4# mono and so that's what I used. Caught trout left and right, now I have no idea how the 4X & 5X would have compared. But comparing the sizing, the 4X which is .007 and 6# with the .008 and 4# mono, no mystery there!
Here's some real life experience I can pass along. While I love to fly fish, I also fish with conventional gear and spend some time chasing yellowfin tuna in the Gulf. I can tell you that without question, fluorocarbon makes all the difference in the world. If you use 50 pound clear monofilament on one rod and 80 pound fluorocarbon (Seaguar) on the other rod, nearly all of your bites will come on the rod with the fluorocarbon leader. Plain and simple. It makes such a difference I have guide buddies down there can spend over $8,000 per year on fluoro instead of going with clear mono at the cost of $500 annually. They don't spend $ when they don't have to.
High quality fluoro has nearly the same refractive index as water which makes it nearly transparent. It's not magic but it absolutely does make a difference when fish are wary. I have seen far too many examples of this over the years both with conventional gear and while fly fishing.
Keep in mind that all flour's are NOT created equal. Some of the major retailers out there force their line suppliers to deliver fluoro to hit lower retails. In order to make that happen, the suppliers need to use lower quality fluoro or fluoro blends. There are a lot of inferior fluoro lines out there that were developed more in hitting a low retail than to perform at a high level. Fluoro sold in larger spools as main line differs in quality and make up over fluoro designed and sold as leader material. Fluoro made specifically to use as a main line (non-fly) is produced to be softer, with less memory which can make it less durable.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a quality fluoro leader will sink 3 times faster than mono so it's not the best choice when fishing dry flies as it can pull the fly down.
Hope this helps some.
I fish flouro tippet pretty much exclusively for trout. 75% of which is 6x. I carry 5x thru 7x. I fish it both dry and wet on a furled thread leader. I preferred the Orvis Maxknot....but it's discontinued now. Not sure what I will go to when my 3-4 spools of each size run out. It will be flouro though most likely. I've seen too many times where it did make the difference.
I primarily use 6x and 7x fluorocarbon and I also fish a tailwater where the water is usually very very clear. I have tried larger sizes and in fast moving water can get away with using 5x. However, I spend the bulk of my time out of the fast moving water. I also always use 7x when tying on a dropper.
Go read what Dr Fish wrote. Then read it again.
I'm not sure about the sink rate - flouro is a little denser than nylon, but 3X the sink rate? I'll have to think about that a while.
But the crux is that flouro material has a refractive index closer to water than nylon does. That means that light passing thru flouro is distorted less than it is thru nylon. Light still reflects off the surface of both, and there is still some distortion passing thru, but IN GENERAL, you can get by with a 1-2X larger size flouro than you can with nylon. Plus, it has much better abrasion resistance.
I swear by it in clear trout lakes and in saltwater where fish have rough mouths. In a bluegill pond, don't know that I'd go to the extra expense.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote