Quote Originally Posted by jszymczyk View Post
Why are people so hesitant to get a mask and snorkel, get their a$$ wet, and see for themselves? a lake or stream is not a glass of water. Looking at a piece of line through the surface glare and reflections while it is in the water is not accurate either. I've never witnessed a fish jump out of the water to have a look at a leader from a fisherman's point of view. Taking into account the INFINITE number of variables involved with the visibility of something underwater, fluorocarbon is not any more or less visually detectable than many, or any, of the kinds of nylon mono to which I've compared it underwater from the fishes' point of view. We can almost universally accept that if I can see it, so can the fish.

The "abrasion resistance" of flouro vs nylon is also largely BS, and certainly is not an accurate blanket-statement.

The different characteristics of flouro compared to nylon may make it the right material for you, but the "refractive index" marketing crap is quite literally, smoke and mirrors.
From personal observation:

Visibility of fluoro hard to determine. some claim it is virtually invisible under water. I really can't judge, agree with above.

Fluoro seems sink a little easier than mono but can be used for dry fly fishing except with the smallest of flies. I prefer mono for dries because it does float a little better which allows for easier/better mending.

Fluoro is generally stiffer for the same diameter than mono. Again, mono is probably better for getting a good drift than fluoro since it tends to be more supple.

For nymphing fluoro is a lot more abrasion resistant. Not long ago I ran out of fluoro tippet and used mono instead that day. I found myself tying and retying flies on all day because the tippets were getting roughed up on the rocks.

Try it for yourself.