Big streamer rod - 7wt vs. 8wt

[Jarmo Hurri]

Howdy all!

My current trout rod arsenal consists of four rods: 2wt, 3wt, 5wt and
6wt. I am now considering adding one more rod for heavyweight work,
for larger, possibly weighted streamers and sinking lines or sink
tips.

I'm not experienced with the line weights I should be looking at - 7wt
to 9wt; my only heavier rod is a two-handed 10/11wt. In order to
select the correct weight, I did a search for the good old table with
line weights and corresponding hook sizes:

http://www.flyanglersonline.com/begin/101/part2.html

The rule of thumb read from the table says that a 7wt should handle a
#4 fly, while an 8wt can handle a size 1/0 fly.

I understand that this is just a rough guide, but I was still somewhat
surprised about this large difference between the 7wt and the
8wt. According to this table, an 8wt would most probably do the job
for me, while a 7wt wouldn't - some of the bleak imitations we use are
pretty big. But my question is: do you agree with the rough size
ranges in the table?

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

[Big Dale]

Jarmo Hurri wrote:
> Howdy all!
>
> My current trout rod arsenal consists of four rods: 2wt, 3wt, 5wt and
> 6wt. I am now considering adding one more rod for heavyweight work,
> for larger, possibly weighted streamers and sinking lines or sink
> tips.
>
> I'm not experienced with the line weights I should be looking at - 7wt
> to 9wt; my only heavier rod is a two-handed 10/11wt.

Here in Texas we use all of these on a regular basis. The nine weight
will wear you out in a full day of blind casting, while you can do it
with an eight weight. The seven weight will probsably be too light for
bulky or heavy bass bugs or streamers. I would get the eight weight.

Big Dale

[Conan The Librarian]

Big Dale wrote:

> Here in Texas we use all of these on a regular basis. The nine weight
> will wear you out in a full day of blind casting, while you can do it
> with an eight weight. The seven weight will probsably be too light for
> bulky or heavy bass bugs or streamers. I would get the eight weight.

At the risk of writing a "me too" post, BD knows what he's talking
about. My first bass rigs were 6 and 8-wt. The 6 can throw smaller
bugs OK, but if dealing with wind and big bulky flies, the 8-wt. is the
ticket. It's not as much fun to fight a fish on a rod that big (unless
you are running into some pretty large fish), but it's no fun at all to
throw big bugs with a 6-wt.

Of course, I use a 5-wt. these days for fishing my favorite river,
so what do I know? :-)


Chuck Vance

[Wayne Knight]

Jarmo Hurri wrote:

> My current trout rod arsenal consists of four rods: 2wt, 3wt, 5wt and
> 6wt.

Yikes, only four...come on man the economy of your country is depending
upon you to do better. :)

> I'm not experienced with the line weights I should be looking at - 7wt
> to 9wt; [snip]
> The rule of thumb read from the table says that a 7wt should handle a
> #4 fly, while an 8wt can handle a size 1/0 fly.

A premium 7wt like the Sage XP or the Winston BIIX will handle the 1/0
fly.

However, to answer your question as to which weight to target. Use the
rule of two, since your heaviest rod is a 6 weight, you can in theory
overline it one weight to make it a de facto 7 wt. By going up two
weight classifications that would suggest you consider an 8 wt. Which
depending upon the conditions and ability over or underline as you see
fit or need.

[Jarmo Hurri]

Dale> Here in Texas we use all of these on a regular basis. The nine
Dale> weight will wear you out in a full day of blind casting, while
Dale> you can do it with an eight weight. The seven weight will
Dale> probsably be too light for bulky or heavy bass bugs or
Dale> streamers. I would get the eight weight.

Thanks for the voice of experience, much appreciated.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

[Jarmo Hurri]

Conan> ... but if dealing with wind and big bulky flies, the 8-wt. is
Conan> the ticket. It's not as much fun to fight a fish on a rod that
Conan> big ...

I've given serious thougth to this fighting issue, and I wonder if the
situation would be a bit better with a medium-action rod. For me, in
the lower line weights, the action of the rod does affect how "big" a
fish feels. Might be just psychological, but I used to have a fast
4wt, with which the smaller fish felt smaller than with the
medium-action 5wt that I'm using now.

So at least at the moment I'm mostly looking at the slower rods (like
Scott V2 and Sage SLT & VPS).

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

[Jarmo Hurri]

>> My current trout rod arsenal consists of four rods: 2wt, 3wt, 5wt
>> and 6wt.

Wayne> Yikes, only four...come on man the economy of your country is
Wayne> depending upon you to do better. :)

Well, actually I think it's the economy of _your_ country.

Wayne> However, to answer your question as to which weight to
Wayne> target. Use the rule of two, since your heaviest rod is a 6
Wayne> weight, you can in theory overline it one weight to make it a
Wayne> de facto 7 wt. By going up two weight classifications that
Wayne> would suggest you consider an 8 wt. Which depending upon the
Wayne> conditions and ability over or underline as you see fit or
Wayne> need.

That's a good point. Although I seldom use the 6wt for anything else
than casting practice, since it's a two-piece rod and too cumbersome
to carry around. So most probably on a trip I would have just the 5wt
and the 8wt rods. But the idea of getting an 8wt and possibly over- or
underlining to cover the line weights 7-9 sounds appealing.

Come to think of it, I wonder why they've made it the rule of two, and
not the rule of three: by over- and underlining a 5wt and an 8wt rod I
could basically cover line weights 4-9.

Thanks for the advice.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

[Conan The Librarian]

Jarmo Hurri wrote:

> I've given serious thougth to this fighting issue, and I wonder if the
> situation would be a bit better with a medium-action rod. For me, in
> the lower line weights, the action of the rod does affect how "big" a
> fish feels. Might be just psychological, but I used to have a fast
> 4wt, with which the smaller fish felt smaller than with the
> medium-action 5wt that I'm using now.

There's probably some merit to that idea. My 8-wt. is a Fenwick HMG
bought back in the early eighties. Its action is closer to fiberglass
than graphite, and it does make a difference in how big the fish feel.
When I pulled it out to practice-cast a while back, I had to totally
re-adjust my casting stroke for it.


Chuck Vance

[jimbo]

"Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
...
>
Bunch of snippage>
> Come to think of it, I wonder why they've made it the rule of two, and
> not the rule of three: by over- and underlining a 5wt and an 8wt rod I
> could basically cover line weights 4-9.
>
> Thanks for the advice.
>
> --
> Jarmo Hurri
>
> Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
> address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
> or just use .

Over and underlining can really improve rod performance if it is done with
some thought. I often use a 6wt line on a 3wt rod when fishing mountain
streams with small pools and thick vegetation. The rod loads quickly and I
am only making 10-15 ft casts. On the other hand, if most of my casts are
expected to be on the long side, dropping a line weight or two can really
speed up a rod. I think the current trend by line manufacturers to make
certain lines "a bit heavier" for the faster rods has fouled up the whole
line selection process though. At least Rio reports the actual line weight
in grains (on their web site, haven't checked their packaging lately), and I
seem to recall that at least one manufacturer now offers lines in half
weight increments.

Jim Ray
Who owns lots more lines than rods...and a really spiffy line winder.

[Tom Nakashima]

"jimbo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jarmo Hurri" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
> Bunch of snippage>
>> Come to think of it, I wonder why they've made it the rule of two, and
>> not the rule of three: by over- and underlining a 5wt and an 8wt rod I
>> could basically cover line weights 4-9.
>>
>> Thanks for the advice.
>>
>> --
>> Jarmo Hurri
>>
>> Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
>> address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
>> or just use .
>
> Over and underlining can really improve rod performance if it is done with
> some thought. I often use a 6wt line on a 3wt rod when fishing mountain
> streams with small pools and thick vegetation. The rod loads quickly and I
> am only making 10-15 ft casts. On the other hand, if most of my casts are
> expected to be on the long side, dropping a line weight or two can really
> speed up a rod. I think the current trend by line manufacturers to make
> certain lines "a bit heavier" for the faster rods has fouled up the whole
> line selection process though. At least Rio reports the actual line weight
> in grains (on their web site, haven't checked their packaging lately), and
> I seem to recall that at least one manufacturer now offers lines in half
> weight increments.
>
> Jim Ray
> Who owns lots more lines than rods...and a really spiffy line winder.

Wow, over-lining a 3wt rod with 6wt line???
-tom

[Conan The Librarian]

jimbo wrote:

> Over and underlining can really improve rod performance if it is done with
> some thought. I often use a 6wt line on a 3wt rod when fishing mountain
> streams with small pools and thick vegetation. The rod loads quickly and I
> am only making 10-15 ft casts. On the other hand, if most of my casts are
> expected to be on the long side, dropping a line weight or two can really
> speed up a rod. I think the current trend by line manufacturers to make
> certain lines "a bit heavier" for the faster rods has fouled up the whole
> line selection process though. At least Rio reports the actual line weight
> in grains (on their web site, haven't checked their packaging lately), and I
> seem to recall that at least one manufacturer now offers lines in half
> weight increments.

Yep, Cortland has their "precision taper" series oflines that are
available in half weights. I put a 3.5 on my TFO 3-wt. for my NC trip
in June and was really happy with it. I'm guessing I could have even
gone higher, but that worked well for close range fishing and I could
still handle longer casts when needed (or possible).


Chuck Vance

[Scott Seidman]

Conan The Librarian > wrote in news:dgeh1c$27re$1
@news.swt.edu:

>
> Yep, Cortland has their "precision taper" series oflines that are
> available in half weights. I put a 3.5 on my TFO 3-wt. for my NC trip
> in June and was really happy with it. I'm guessing I could have even
> gone higher, but that worked well for close range fishing and I could
> still handle longer casts when needed (or possible).
>
>
> Chuck Vance
>
>

SA has a line (I think the Mastery series) where the line is actually a
half weight above what it says on the box. Makes you wonder if rods are
being underweighted.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

[Tom Nakashima]

"Scott Seidman" > wrote in message
. 1.4...
> Conan The Librarian > wrote in news:dgeh1c$27re$1
> @news.swt.edu:
>
>>
>> Yep, Cortland has their "precision taper" series oflines that are
>> available in half weights. I put a 3.5 on my TFO 3-wt. for my NC trip
>> in June and was really happy with it. I'm guessing I could have even
>> gone higher, but that worked well for close range fishing and I could
>> still handle longer casts when needed (or possible).
>>
>>
>> Chuck Vance
>>
>>
>
> SA has a line (I think the Mastery series) where the line is actually a
> half weight above what it says on the box. Makes you wonder if rods are
> being underweighted.
>
> --
> Scott
> Reverse name to reply

I don't think rods are being underweighted. I think what threw the line
designations off was the fast action rods.
-tom

[jimbo]

"Tom Nakashima" > wrote in message
...
>
> "jimbo" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
Snippage
>>
>> Over and underlining can really improve rod performance if it is done
>> with some thought. I often use a 6wt line on a 3wt rod when fishing
>> mountain streams with small pools and thick vegetation. The rod loads
>> quickly and I am only making 10-15 ft casts. >

> Wow, over-lining a 3wt rod with 6wt line???
> -tom
>
Yep. I can't say it was my original intention the first time I did it
(grabbed the wrong reel when I left the house, it was either use the 6wt, or
go home), but it worked great. Think about it: a 3wt line is rated at 100
grains for the first 30 feet, and a 6wt line is rated at 160 grains for the
first 30 feet. When my longest cast will be only 15 feet, the rod is
probably seeing just 70 grains or so of the line, well below the design load
for the rod. In fact, for such short casts, you could probably go to an 8wt
line (at 210 grains) and still be fine, except that most 8wt lines are a bit
short on delicacy. The amazing thing was that I tried extending my casts at
a later date, and I could not believe how well the little 3wt handled a 6wt
line - out to about 40-45 feet (but it r e a l l y s l o w e d down the
action, predictably). Modern rods have a lot more in reserve than I ever
thought.

Jim Ray

[Tom Nakashima]

"jimbo" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Nakashima" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "jimbo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
> Snippage
>>>
>>> Over and underlining can really improve rod performance if it is done
>>> with some thought. I often use a 6wt line on a 3wt rod when fishing
>>> mountain streams with small pools and thick vegetation. The rod loads
>>> quickly and I am only making 10-15 ft casts. >
>
>> Wow, over-lining a 3wt rod with 6wt line???
>> -tom
>>
> Yep. I can't say it was my original intention the first time I did it
> (grabbed the wrong reel when I left the house, it was either use the 6wt,
> or go home), but it worked great. Think about it: a 3wt line is rated at
> 100 grains for the first 30 feet, and a 6wt line is rated at 160 grains
> for the first 30 feet. When my longest cast will be only 15 feet, the rod
> is probably seeing just 70 grains or so of the line, well below the design
> load for the rod. In fact, for such short casts, you could probably go to
> an 8wt line (at 210 grains) and still be fine, except that most 8wt lines
> are a bit short on delicacy. The amazing thing was that I tried extending
> my casts at a later date, and I could not believe how well the little 3wt
> handled a 6wt line - out to about 40-45 feet (but it r e a l l y s l o
> w e d down the action, predictably). Modern rods have a lot more in
> reserve than I ever thought.
>
> Jim Ray

Jim, I did think about it....actually thought about you breaking the tip off
using a 3wt rod with 6wt line...but you must be a very skilled caster. I'm
sure the rod was bending pretty well with that heavy line on there, talk
about loading the rod. I have over and underlined rods before, but only
going up or down one weight.
I cast a 5, 6 and an 8 rod with matching lines.
-tom

[Mu Young Lee]

On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Jarmo Hurri wrote:
>
> Conan> ... but if dealing with wind and big bulky flies, the 8-wt. is
> Conan> the ticket. It's not as much fun to fight a fish on a rod that
> Conan> big ...
>
> I've given serious thougth to this fighting issue, and I wonder if the
> situation would be a bit better with a medium-action rod.

Not sure what sort of streamers you want to throw but if they are wind
resistant (like bass bugs) then a fast action rod will be better. For
trout I throw plenty of streamers using my 4 wt and 6 wt rods without any
difficulty.

Mu

[Jarmo Hurri]

>> I've given serious thougth to this fighting issue, and I wonder if
>> the situation would be a bit better with a medium-action rod.

Mu> Not sure what sort of streamers you want to throw but if they are
Mu> wind resistant (like bass bugs) then a fast action rod will be
Mu> better.

Agreed. I guess that from the point of view of casting, a fast 7wt
_might_ be as good as a medium-fast 8wt. But I currently think that
from the point of view of fighting the fish, a slower 8wt would be
better than a faster 7wt. For me, that is.

Full-sinking and sink-tip lines make the equation even more
complicated. On the other hand, my two-handed rod is very slow, and
I've learned to use it quite effectively with a type IV fast-sinking
shooting head.

Mu> For trout I throw plenty of streamers using my 4 wt and 6 wt rods
Mu> without any difficulty.

Me too. For example, the rod that I use on most local streams is a
6'6" 3wt, on which I use a 4wt DT line. Most of the streams are not
what you would call a 'small stream', so I need to do some actual
casting with the rod. And I use - for example - heavily weighted
Woolly Buggers with no problems.

But with large flies that are very wind-resistant and/or absorb a lot
of water, using lighter gear is just not fun - especially when there's
little or no room for backcasts, and the line is just too light to
lift the fly off the water in a switch or spey cast.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

[Jarmo Hurri]

>> I've given serious thougth to this fighting issue, and I wonder if
>> the situation would be a bit better with a medium-action rod. For
>> me, in the lower line weights, the action of the rod does affect
>> how "big" a fish feels. Might be just psychological, but I used to
>> have a fast 4wt, with which the smaller fish felt smaller than with
>> the medium-action 5wt that I'm using now.

Conan> There's probably some merit to that idea. My 8-wt. is a
Conan> Fenwick HMG bought back in the early eighties. Its action is
Conan> closer to fiberglass than graphite, and it does make a
Conan> difference in how big the fish feel.

It's intersting that some of the top rod manufacturers - most notably
Winston, Scott and T&T - no longer offer high-end medium-action rods
in 8wt. Sage still has the SLT, but otherwise I feel like I'm swimming
against the current here. One of my dealers said that "it doesn't make
sense to pay a lot of money for a medium-action rod". I don't really
understand why.

Maybe I'm just an outlier.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

[[email protected]]

The problem isn't coming from the line companies, it's the rod companies.
The majority are underrating the rods weight so it will hold more line in
the air and the average rod buyer thinks he's buying so boomer when he could
have done the same thing underlining the rod he has now. The Sage TCRs are
all rated at least 1 line light in the lower weights and starting with the 8
wt 2 lines light. Have tested quite a few rods and a bunch more are all
listed at www.superbob.org/cc.htm. There are no required specs for rod blank
ratings, there has only been specs for fly lines.

[Scott Seidman]

wrote in
nk.net:

> The majority are underrating the rods weight so it will hold more line
> in the air and the average rod buyer thinks he's buying so boomer when
> he could have done the same thing underlining the rod he has now.

Then how come the line companies are creating lines a half class heavier??

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

[[email protected]]

Because just like the posts before, people were starting to blame the line
companies for the lack of performance in their supposed fast action boomers.
You don't think the rod companies were going to fess up? The rod companies
have a market they design the rod for, and they think they know what the
customer wants from the rod. A western angler would have different criteria
for his purchase on a big open area stream than a Pacific Northwest or
eastern angler would who fishes in the brush. What is easier, putting a
label on a blank that meets the customers expectations as long as you have a
large media budget, or designing specific blanks to meet each customers
needs? Look how many top end rods are on ebay something tells me someone
read all the hype and promises, they envisioned that they were just that
sort of fellow that needed that rod, probably didn't even cast it first let
alone fish it, and got burned. The line companies now see a market, if I
just put a heavier line in a box rated for that fellow's rod he'll now be
happy with the rod. They don't blame the rod manufacturers, they just tout
the new wizbang line to fit the "special needs" of the new performance rods.
This puts us back 40 - 50 years before the agreed specs for fly lines came
out, when everyone bought a rod then figured out what it would throw.