![]() |
2 wt fly line
Does anyone have a recommendation for a inexpensive 2wt line to be used on bluegills.
Tom Church (the good looking Church) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
2 wt fly line
Are you interested in a used one?
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Are you still wasting your time with spam?... There is a solution!" Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector The most powerful anti-spam software available. http://mail.spaminspector.com "Tom Church" wrote in message ... Does anyone have a recommendation for a inexpensive 2wt line to be used on bluegills. Tom Church (the good looking Church) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
2 wt fly line
Tom Church wrote in :
Does anyone have a recommendation for a inexpensive 2wt line to be used on bluegills. Tom Church (the good looking Church) .....mirror mirror on the wall....tell ya what bro', build me one of them cute little 2 wts and i'll *give* you an *expensive* 2 wt line, new, still in the box. izzat a deal or what? seriously, i just spent what seemed like hours checking for 2 wt lines (including ebay) and found nothing under 40 bucks. at this point, cabelas has the "cheapest" at $39.95...it's their house brand Prestige line, which i have used successfully on many a smallmouth g just goes to show that nothing is too good for my little brother. Frank Church ...the older and wiser one (if ya can't baffle 'em with your bull****, dazzle 'em with your footwork... |
2 wt fly line
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:23:21 GMT, Tom Church wrote:
Does anyone have a recommendation for a inexpensive 2wt line to be used on bluegills. Tom Church (the good looking Church) Any problem going up to a 3? I went through this same thing in July (the 2wt search) and there ain't much out there, but a buddy had one he offered as backup, so I just took what I had. I tried a 3, just to see, and didn't notice much difference (on a 6' 6" 2wt). TC, R |
2 wt fly line
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:23:21 GMT, Tom Church wrote:
Does anyone have a recommendation for a inexpensive 2wt line to be used on bluegills. Tom Church (the good looking Church) Any problem going up to a 3? I went through this same thing in July (the 2wt search) and there ain't much out there, but a buddy had one he offered as backup, so I just took what I had. I tried a 3, just to see, and didn't notice much difference (on a 6' 6" 2wt). TC, R |
2 wt fly line
|
2 wt fly line
Hi Tom,
About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line. Look for some on close-out or on ebay. WF3F If they make the SA/Mastery "Head Start" in a WF3F then that would be a good line becuase it has shorter tapers that would be better for panfish flies. -- Bill Kiene Kiene's Fly Shop Sacramento, CA, USA Web site: www.kiene.com "Tom Church" wrote in message ... Does anyone have a recommendation for a inexpensive 2wt line to be used on bluegills. Tom Church (the good looking Church) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
2 wt fly line
Bill Kiene wrote:
About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line. In other words, a fair number of 3-weight rods are mislabeled as 2-weights. Golly. The "industry" better get on the ball and mislabel more 3-weight lines as 2-weight, or the suck..., uh, customers are going to start thinking they're being had... JR |
2 wt fly line
Bill Kiene wrote:
About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line. In other words, a fair number of 3-weight rods are mislabeled as 2-weights. Golly. The "industry" better get on the ball and mislabel more 3-weight lines as 2-weight, or the suck..., uh, customers are going to start thinking they're being had... JR |
2 wt fly line
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message ... JR wrote: Bill Kiene wrote: About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line. .... I wonder if people are overlining the new faster action rods- to slow them down to get them in synch with what they are used to? My 2 wt worked better with most standard 3 wt lines, the only 2 wt line it seemed to cast well was the RIO pocket water 2 wt. |
2 wt fly line
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message ... JR wrote: Bill Kiene wrote: About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line. .... I wonder if people are overlining the new faster action rods- to slow them down to get them in synch with what they are used to? My 2 wt worked better with most standard 3 wt lines, the only 2 wt line it seemed to cast well was the RIO pocket water 2 wt. |
2 wt fly line
Willi wrote:snipthe "regular" fly
gear industry is ignoring established standards and things are getting muddled. I think this has been going on for some time. I have a Loomis IMX 2 weight rod made close to a decade ago that barely loads with a 4 weight line. If I had wanted another 4 weight rod, I would have bought a 4 weight rod. Big Dale |
2 wt fly line
Willi wrote:snipthe "regular" fly
gear industry is ignoring established standards and things are getting muddled. I think this has been going on for some time. I have a Loomis IMX 2 weight rod made close to a decade ago that barely loads with a 4 weight line. If I had wanted another 4 weight rod, I would have bought a 4 weight rod. Big Dale |
2 wt fly line
John Hightower wrote:
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message ... JR wrote: Bill Kiene wrote: About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line. ... I wonder if people are overlining the new faster action rods- to slow them down to get them in synch with what they are used to? My 2 wt worked better with most standard 3 wt lines, the only 2 wt line it seemed to cast well was the RIO pocket water 2 wt. FWIW, both my 2 weights cast better with the rated line. I tried uplining both, and it made them feel sluggish. I guess it all depends on how you like the rod to feel? brians |
2 wt fly line
John Hightower wrote:
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message ... JR wrote: Bill Kiene wrote: About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line. ... I wonder if people are overlining the new faster action rods- to slow them down to get them in synch with what they are used to? My 2 wt worked better with most standard 3 wt lines, the only 2 wt line it seemed to cast well was the RIO pocket water 2 wt. FWIW, both my 2 weights cast better with the rated line. I tried uplining both, and it made them feel sluggish. I guess it all depends on how you like the rod to feel? brians |
2 wt fly line
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message ... JR wrote: Bill Kiene wrote: About 90% of all 2 weight rods would work better with a 3 weight line. In other words, a fair number of 3-weight rods are mislabeled as 2-weights. Golly. The "industry" better get on the ball and mislabel more 3-weight lines as 2-weight, or the suck..., uh, customers are going to start thinking they're being had... JR As a consumer I think the pattern of not following the standards that have been accepted for a long time, sucks. With flylines, this is getting to be somewhat commonplace. For example, some lines sold as 5 weights are not 5 weights based on the standard. Maybe this is starting with rods too. It seems ironic, based on what PC reported: spey casters are trying to establish a standard to make things less confusing, the "regular" fly gear industry is ignoring established standards and things are getting muddled. Another simpler option to trying to get all the line and rod manufacturers to agree on standards would be to write a lot of letters to the rod manufacturers, and get them to list the recommended lines from major manufacturers for their specific rods. Even if all the line manufacturers agreed to standardize their weight ratings, we'd have to check the year a line was produced to see if it was still rated the same: what Rio sold as a 5wt in 2004 might now be sold as a 6wt in 2006, even for the exact same line. That would get even messier than the balagan we currently have. You know, it would not be a difficult thing for a roffian to make a database of different rods and the weight/brand of line that we use on them. --riverman Question: can we assume that a manufacturer who makes rods and lines (are there any?) are internally consistent, at least? Would a brand X 5wt line fit a brand X 5 wt rod? Can we assume the same about reels, also? |
2 wt fly line
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 00:23:21 GMT, Tom Church wrote:
Does anyone have a recommendation for a inexpensive 2wt line to be used on bluegills. Tom Church (the good looking Church) FWIW I was just nosing around Cold Spring Anglers web site and found this on their fly line specials page. With free shipping and handling. 10-992 45.00 32.00 WF2F Sage - Quiet Taper - Weight Forward Floating - 2 Weight It is marked down from 45 to 32 bucks. They also have this sinker marked down to 36 dollars if you are into that sort of thing. 10-922 52.00 36.00 TTI2 Royal Wulff - Triangle Taper - Intermediate Sink - 2 Weight Their site: http://www.coldspringanglers.com/onl...rtland%20444SL Kiyu |
2 wt fly line
riverman wrote:
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message ... Another simpler option to trying to get all the line and rod manufacturers to agree on standards would be to write a lot of letters to the rod manufacturers, and get them to list the recommended lines from major manufacturers for their specific rods. Even if all the line manufacturers agreed to standardize their weight ratings, we'd have to check the year a line was produced to see if it was still rated the same: what Rio sold as a 5wt in 2004 might now be sold as a 6wt in 2006, even for the exact same line. That would get even messier than the balagan we currently have. You know, it would not be a difficult thing for a roffian to make a database of different rods and the weight/brand of line that we use on them. --riverman The whole point of of having a standard is to avoid a messy situation like that.None of the above would be necessary if the line manufacturers stuck to the AFTMA ratings standard that has pretty much been followed for over fifty years. For example, if the standard is followed ALL 5 weight lines would weigh between 134 and 146 grains. It wouldn't matter if it is a floating line, sink tip, weight forward, double taper, shooting head etc. If you buy a 5 weight line, you would know that no matter what type line, from what manufacturer, the line would load the rod in approximately the same way. Willi |
2 wt fly line
"Willi & Sue" wrote in message ... riverman wrote: "Willi & Sue" wrote in message ... Another simpler option to trying to get all the line and rod manufacturers to agree on standards would be to write a lot of letters to the rod manufacturers, and get them to list the recommended lines from major manufacturers for their specific rods. Even if all the line manufacturers agreed to standardize their weight ratings, we'd have to check the year a line was produced to see if it was still rated the same: what Rio sold as a 5wt in 2004 might now be sold as a 6wt in 2006, even for the exact same line. That would get even messier than the balagan we currently have. You know, it would not be a difficult thing for a roffian to make a database of different rods and the weight/brand of line that we use on them. --riverman The whole point of of having a standard is to avoid a messy situation like that.None of the above would be necessary if the line manufacturers stuck to the AFTMA ratings standard that has pretty much been followed for over fifty years. For example, if the standard is followed ALL 5 weight lines would weigh between 134 and 146 grains. It wouldn't matter if it is a floating line, sink tip, weight forward, double taper, shooting head etc. If you buy a 5 weight line, you would know that no matter what type line, from what manufacturer, the line would load the rod in approximately the same way. I realize that, but which is easier: to get every line manufacturer to adjust the rating of every line they make (with all the associated advertisting, labeling, recalls, etc), or to get every rod manufacturer to make a list of which lines, in the current stupid system, work with that rod? Although the first option would be optimal (and logical), I think the line makers have some reason that they varied from the standards, and have $$ invested in advertising, etc, and would not be easy to convince to go back to the standards. The second strategy might even force them to get standardized over a short time, once word got out that a Rio 5 wt is really a 6 wt according to the standard ratings. That being said, I am very nervous now about how to re-rig my rods....I have no idea what reel or lines would work best. Damn. --riverman |
2 wt fly line
riverman The second strategy might even force them to get riverman standardized over a short time, once word got out that a Rio riverman 5 wt is really a 6 wt according to the standard ratings. So how about just making a page where you list and recommend those lines that conform to the standards. I'd like that. -- Jarmo Hurri Commercial email countermeasures included in header email address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying, or just use . |
2 wt fly line
riverman wrote:
That being said, I am very nervous now about how to re-rig my rods....I have no idea what reel or lines would work best. Damn. Most line manufacturers still follow AFTMA standards for most of their lines. As far as I know (which may not be much) it's only some of the specialty that vary from it. Maybe someone that knows more can comment. I think if you go with a model of line that's been around for awhile, it will still follow the standard. Willi |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter