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
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.
I ahave fished both as tippet for bleugills, crappie and bass n the ponds around here.
Did not see any difference in the number of fish.
My guess is that there is not much difference in lower weight lines. As line weight goes up it may be much more important.
Rick
Fluorocarbon has four main advantages over nylon monofilament.
The one that everyone mentions is visibility and refractive index. Fluorocarbon does have a refractive index closer to water and if that were the only factor in visibility, it would be less visible. There is also color and sheen. A line that is the same color as the water is less visible because of the camouflage effect. Sheen is reflectivity due to the oily lubricant that is on the line surface due to the extrusion process of manufacturing. In very clear and thin water, this sheen can spook fish and that is why fly fishers will use Snake River Mud to remove the sheen and oily coating from both nylon and fluorocarbon tippets. All things equal and in clear still water, fluorocarbon is less visible than nylon.
Seeing is believing.
Here is a visual test of 0.16 mm nylon monofilament on the right and 0.18 mm fluorocarbon on the left. The fluorocarbon is THICKER than the mono.
You decide which on is more or less visible. You decide whether the visibility is due to the difference in reflection or refraction. Are you seeing the mono because of sheen from the surface or because it bends the light from behind it differently that pure water, and are you are seeing a difference in DENSITY of the mono vs the fluorocarbon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpgGfm6Q0rY
Fluorocarbon’s second advantage is that it does not absorb water and nylon does. Nylon monofilament can absorb 10% of its weight in water and loses 25% of its breaking strength.
Fluorocarbon’s third advantage is that it is solid and nylon monofilament is porous so for a given volume, there is more material in fluoro line. Therefore, for a given X size, flouro has the potential for being stronger than mono. Check out the [u]line strength ratings of Rio mono vs fluoro tippets[/u] and you will see that the fluoro is stronger than the mono. The “rio” difference though is in wet strength. Mono will get weaker and fluoro will maintain its strength. The absorption of water by mono also weakens the mono knot including the tippet to fly knot.
Fluorocarbon’s fourth advantage is that it is more abrasion resistant. It is harder than nylon. So for nymphing; the wet strength, low visibility, and wet strength makes it better than nylon.
Fluorocarbon’s fifth difference is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Fluorocarbon is resistant to UV light breakdown so you can keep a spool of fluorocarbon for years and it will not degrade. Nylon mono gradually weakens. For salt water fishers, that means you don’t need to replace the line on the casting reels every year. For fly fishers, you can buy large spools of fluorocarbon and use it over many, many years.
The slow breakdown also means that it stays in the environment for thousands of years. But nylon is not that great either. Nylon mono takes 500 years to completely break down so you shouldn’t toss either along the stream or lake.
Although fluorocarbon is a bit denser than water and has a higher specific gravity than nylon mono, nylon is also heavier than water. It turns out that the slight difference in specific gravity has little effect on the sink rate of fluorocarbon vs nylon of the same diameter. Although both are heavier than water, the surface tension of water allows both nylon and fluorocarbon to float and be used for dry fly leaders.
Once under water, fluorocarbon will sink a bit faster than nylon but that does not mean it can break through the surface tension. Tests have shown that fluorocarbon is not dense enough to sink on its own.
We have seen the experiment that demonstrates that surface tension can float a sewing needle on water. But once you push the needle under to break the surface tension, the needle sinks.
The Floating Needle. - YouTube
Surface tension will float also fluorocarbon. But once pulled under water by the fly or split shot, it sinks. If you want to keep it floating longer, coat it with silicone floatant.
The truth is that fluorocarbon will not make dry flies sink NOR is it measurably better than nylon in getting nymphs to sink. Both statements are wrong. Surface tension is what floats both flies and leaders that are heavier than water and lead or tungsten is what makes nymphs sink. Over the average cast and drift, whether the tippet is nylon or fluorocarbon has no effect on making a dry fly float or making a nymph sink.
[i]
“The actual blend of polymers used to produce ?nylon? varies somewhat, but the nylon formulations used to make monofilament leaders and tippets generally have a specific gravity in the range of 1.05 to 1.10, making them just slightly heavier than water. To put those numbers in perspective, tungsten?used in high-density sink tips?has a specific gravity of 19.25.”
“Fluorocarbon has a specific gravity in the range of 1.75 to 1.90. Tungsten it ain?t, but it is significantly more dense than nylon. But is it sufficiently dense to quickly and reliable break surface tension and sink all by itself, even at zero contact angles, and even in the smallest diameters? No, it?s not. Our testing reveals that most brands of fluorocarbon tippet material in 0X to 8X diameters are no better than nylon at breaking surface tension and sinking on their own.”[/i]
It used to be that fluorocarbon was stiffer than mono for identical diameters and so it hindered a drag free drift. Now there are limp fluorocarbons so there is less difference between the two. When I buy fluorocarbon tippet material, I buy the limpest one on the shelf. I will give up some breaking strength for a longer drag free drift.
Here’s the best article on fluorocarbon vs nylon that I have been able to find:
[u]http://www.flyfishamerica.com/content/fluorocarbon-vs-nylon[/u]
guys,
thanks for all the great input. the reason i asked the question to begin with is i am having a lot of trouble with knot strength and slippage with 5x fluoro tippet material and was thinking that maybe going with 4 lb test fluorocarbon fishing line might help. My main concern was a visibility issue between 4lb test fluoro and 5x tippet material.
after reading all the answers im not sure their is much of a difference so ill try the fluoro fishing line. it kinda aggrevates me paying $10.00 for 30 yds of line that breaks.
thanks again guys
Excellent!! I agree, in my experience.
Rocketfish
Silver,
Thanks for the good information. Always good to try to separate fact from fiction.
Is limpness subjective? Or is it testable?
Things I have tried:
Great info from Silver as usual.
I really like fluoro for nymph fishing due to it’s abrasion resistance and lack of water absorption. In my mind, these properties give fluoro a better “effective fishing strength” than mono. That is the strength of fluoro doesn’t degrade while nymph fishing where mono degrades due abrasions and water absorption.
FWIW, I bought a 200 yard spool of premium fluorocarbon spin fishing line (Seaguar Invisix) in January and have been using it for all of my nymph fishing this year. It cost me about $20 for 200 yards or about 1/4 the price of premium fluoro tippet. Its about a 4.5X and seems a little stronger to me than the 5X fluorocarbon tippet I was using previously. After 9 months of heavy usage, I haven’t noticed any deficiencies or reductions in my catch rate, but my spool was getting low, so I bought another spool this week.