Question on a personal observation...

[WarrenP]

The other day, while watching a fishing program on TV, they were doing an advertisement on a certain brand of fluorocarbon and did a demonstration of how it will disappear under water by having a glass of water on a table and took a piece of their line with a lure tied on it and dipped the lure into the glass of water and it did seem to disappear. This inspired me to do the same thing, so, I took 3 different brands of fluorocarbon, tied a subsurface fly on them and dipped them into a glass of water and all three fluorocarbon lines were very visible looking at them through the glass. I even tried mono to see how much more visible it was and and did not notice a difference between it and the fluorocarbon.

Are we assuming that fluorocarbon disappears under water due to the marketing hype and there is not that much difference between it and mono? I am not making any statements here based on my limited experiment, but, just wondering if anyone else has tried this and what their results were?

[Jack Hise]

Warren;
I've done the same thing with the same results. I think it could be the angle and type of lighting used in the ads to get the results.
I do like the way it sinks though and will continue to use it for subsurface fishing. I like to feel the hook ticking the bottom! And I detest using bobbers!

[redietz]

Warren;
I've done the same thing with the same results. I think it could be the angle and type of lighting used in the ads to get the results.
I do like the way it sinks though and will continue to use it for subsurface fishing.

That's probably the best reason to flourocarbon: it sinks well.

There were series of photo in FlyTying and Fly Fishing (the British one of that name) a couple of years back showing under water photos of flies tied to 1) sunken flourocarbon leaders, and 2) floating mono leaders. The results were exactly the opposite of what most angler think they would be. The sunken flouro leader was clearly visible; the floating mono was not. (Of course it still probably casts a shadow on bottom; the picture didn't show that.)

[DUB]

If Fluoro is a scam then I have been a sucker for quite a few years. It may be like chicken soup. Doesn't do as much as you think it does, but does not hurt anything either. Except the pocket book.

When using weighted flies or split shot, I do not really think it makes much difference between mono and fluoro, and their sink rate or buoyancy. I like feeling the rig ticking the bottom as well, but there's always a place for a bobber in my tool box.

[planettrout]

Some underwater photos of both Mono and Fluoro from this tippet shoot out:

http://www.yellowstoneangler.com/gea...r-stoft-umpqua

...here:

http://www.yellowstoneangler.com/index.php/gear-review/tippet-shootout-seaguar-grandmax-trouthunter-orvis-mirage-riopowerflex-pline-dairiki-varivas-sa-climax-maxima-froghair-stoft-umpqua/visibility-underwater


PT/TB

[Preston Singletary]

Simply as an historical comment (the article doesn't go into it in any depth), the basis for the "X" system goes back to the days before the development of synthetic leader or tippet materials. The material referred to as "gut" or "catgut", which preceded the post-war synthetics was actually a part of the silk-spinning apparatus of the silkworm caterpillar. Stripped from the body of the caterpillar this short, flexible length of intestinal material could be stretched to an overall length of 18-20 inches (it is interesting that many leader formulas still call for tying custom leaders in 18-inch increments). After removal and stretching, this length of material was "fixed" by being dipped into an acid solution and then stripped through a series of diamond dies to reduce the diameter to a standard size; hence 1X, 2X, 3X, to represent the number of times the length of material was drawn through the serially smaller apertures.

The material was flexible so long as it remained moist so, in order to be stored in a useable condition, it was necessary to use the once-common leader box, the small, cylindrical aluminum box, where the 18-inch lengths of "gut" could be coiled and stored between pads of water-and-glycerine-saturated felt.

[sagefisher]

My own observations: While nymph fishing in rivers it is very difficult to see the fluorocarbon tippet, for instance when I first place the fly in the water to study the action of the fly. I switched to fluoro many years ago because it was harder to see as compared to mono,based on my personal observations in actual river fishing conditions. I still use mono leaders but all flies are tied to fluorocarbon tippets. The guides I use in WA and MT have also switched to fluorocarbon tippet material. There is a reason for that.

For dry flying I also use fluoro tippets. Most of my dry flying involves size 18 or bigger flies. If insanity hits and I have to go down to a 22 or smaller, then I would use mono, or I would put floatant on the fluoro tippet. But since I never do that I stick with flouro. I prefer the tippet to sink slightly below the surface to decrease visibility, and the flies have enough buoyancy to stay float.

I listen and observe what the guides do and what they use. They are out there to give the customer the best chance at catching fish so they do what they use what they think is the best bet.

Larry ---sagefisher---

[whatfly]

The refractive index of fluorocarbon is lower than monofilament. This is a fact. Is it enough to make it invisible in water? Of course not.

Should you use it? Completely up to you, but those who pay a premium for those dinky spools of tippet are throwing money away, in my opinion (price of Maxima Fluorocarbon in 180m spools is about same as Rio tippet in 27m spools). I use Fluorocarbon for tippet and like the results for subsurface applications, but the material I use amounts to standard fishing line, which is priced reasonably.

There is a volume of information out there on this debate if one were only to consult google. Here's an interesting somewhat systematic take from a fluorocarbon naysayer: http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_in...orocarbon.html