Big streamer rod - 7wt vs. 8wt

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 .

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

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

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.

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 .

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 .

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 .

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

"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.

"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