On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 10:23:54 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 03:08:58 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote:

But, as my actual abilities have gradually increased, I find that I use the
2wt less and less and have come to perceive "better" as matching tools and
techniques to the situation in the best possible, most practical, "form
follows function" problem solving manner.


I agree with you in general, but I need a 2 wt
for those pygmy fish Peter takes me to on the
Grand River.


Oh, the ones *you* catch? Ya, I can understand that.

To the original poster - my main small stream rod over the years, has
been a medium action Winston 7'6" 5 wt. The fact that it's a Winston
is not important, the size is. Something slow to medium in a 7' to
7'6" -- 4wt. to 5 wt. rod makes for a more appropriate small stream
rod than these little sticks. Very small streams, like the ones the
Nawth Clackalackians fish, can benefit from something like a Hardy
glass 3 wt. but the average small stream (meaning something that runs
from 15' to 30' wide on average) will fish better with a rod that can
handle larger flies and the wind when need be.

So far I've only found one rod that doesn't follow this pattern, the
Diamondback 8'2" 2/3 wt. that I pried out of Uncle Wally's twitching
fingers. While rated a 2/3 (and it does cast those lines nicely) it's
fast progressive action would allow you to toss a 4 wt. on it. So it
has the backbone for bigger fish etc. but it will still cast these
teeny-weeny lines. It fires a 3 wt. with more authority than any
other 3 wt. I've tried, but it's the exception, not the rule. I have
owned one and two weights in the past but I've always ended up selling
them as the opportunity to use them as the Lord intended, was always
too limited and I'd always end up on the Upper Credit with the Winston
instead.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html