Home Register Today's Posts Members User CP Calendar FAQ

Go Back   Little River Outfitters Forum > Fly Fishing Board > Tackle and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-27-2007, 04:49 PM
lauxier lauxier is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: irvine ky
Posts: 420
Default tippet

How much stronger is flurocarbon tippet than cheaper tippet---Is FC tippet more invisible in water?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-27-2007, 07:43 PM
DrewDelashmit's Avatar
DrewDelashmit DrewDelashmit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cudjoe Key, FL
Posts: 74
Default

Flourocarbon should not be any stronger than monofilament tippet of the same stated breaking strength. The thing that most people find is that it does tend to be more abrasion resistant - although I am sure that it varies from brand to brand.

Flourocarbon isn't "invisible" in the water, it has a refractory index that is closer to water than mono. So theoretically it should be less visible to the fish. Although, I have yet to have a fish tell me that is the case.

Drew
__________________
www.keywestonfly.com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-27-2007, 08:39 PM
nvr2L8's Avatar
nvr2L8 nvr2L8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Maryville, TN
Posts: 1,063
Default Six of one...

I have tried both mono and FC and have not been able tell an appreciable difference. I'm using the FC mostly right now primarily to use up the more expensive stuff but I don't expect much difference when I move back to the mono. One caution - I tried Frog Hair FC and had a tough time with knots. I talked with another, more experienced, fly fisherman who had the same experience with this brand. He recommended Umpqua so I tried a spool of that and had none of the knot issues that I did with the Frog Hair. But again, not an appreciable difference for the stream fishing that I've done to warrant the additional cost.

My two cents.
__________________
Charlie B

His eye is on the sparrow and I know He watches me.
bartonca@hotmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-27-2007, 11:19 PM
MtnMike MtnMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Bluff City, TN
Posts: 240
Default my experience on the SoHo

I think I have related my personal experience before, but it was enough to convince me to make the switch to flouro and I have never looked back. I think it was the first year I started fly-fishing, around 4 years ago. Toward the end of the summer, after the Sulphurs had slowed down, I was beginning to have trouble getting fish to take my flies, so I tried 7X and did begin to have a few more hook-ups. At this point nothing but mono. A friend suggested that instead of using 7X, which breaks pretty easy, I should try 6X flouro. I did and I experimented same day same fly and I definitely hooked-up with more fish with 6X flouro than I did with 6X mono therefore I do think that it is less visible to fish. However, I am also convinced that I hooked into just as many if not more fish with 6X flouro as I did with 7X mono, so since I had to use thinner mono to get the same results as flouro it is also stronger. Since then I use nothing but flouro as my tippet material, tied to mono leaders. I usually buy 5X mono leaders and add 6X flouro tippet.
I've experimented with differnt brands and use almost nothing but RIO flouroflex plus now. Just my experience, but it was enough to convince me.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-27-2007, 11:22 PM
Stonefly's Avatar
Stonefly Stonefly is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 608
Default Fluoro v. mono

Is it not true that fluourocarbon is stronger than mono for a given diameter? So 6X fluoro is stronger than 6x mono?

sb
__________________
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation, unless they fly fish... with apologies to Thoreau
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-27-2007, 11:32 PM
MtnMike MtnMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Bluff City, TN
Posts: 240
Default forgot to mention

I also believe that flouro sinks faster than mono in equivalant size (6X vs 6X).

I also realize that in my previous post I was comparing the strenth of one size to the strength of another size, but that was because that was what I had to fish to get equivalant results. I'm probably confusing everyone, because I'm not sure what I'm saying anymore. I think that in the same size (6X vs 6X) the difference in strength would be minimal, they are rated almost identical.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:44 AM.



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.