Washington Fly Fishing Forum banner

Are overweight lines getting out of control?

13K views 184 replies 44 participants last post by  Jeremy Floyd 
#1 ·
Azure Font Rectangle Screenshot Parallel

Font Material property Parallel Number Circle


Above is a chart for the Rio Outbound, and the second chart is the AFFTA approved weights. I am looking for a line for my Sage, and was questioning how far out of spec many lines are from MOST manufacturers, not just Rio.
Now I know it's wise go up or down a size as needed to adjust for gear and conditions, but look at the above for a minute. I know Outbounds are meant to shoot and not cast, BUT the Rio is 50% heavier than the spec. I think a few years ago, all the rage was to go a line weight or 2 heavier, and the manufacturers jumped on that by implying you could cast farther that way. This might be true for shooting line out, but for casting it's a different story.
Lets say I bite on the marketing, and need a new 5 wt line. I buy a 6 to put a heavy load on a 5 wt because that's the trend...I wind up with a 240 grain (6 wt) on a 5 manufactured for a 140 grain.

Kreh has a great article on flexibility in adjusting equipment,
http://www.scientificanglers.com/pl...s/how-choose-right-fly-line-weight-lefty-kreh
but how much is too much on marketing lines SO FAR out of spec? Kreh says you might even go 2 line sizes heavier if needed, which could waste my $80 by purchasing a 275 grain, 7 wt Outbound line on my 5 wt that was supposedly designed for 140 grains.

Seems trivial now that I type it, but I think the standard needs to be reeled back in line with spec, or why have the spec in the first place.

Rant over....
 
See less See more
2
#109 ·
I plan on fishing for tiger musky using an 8wt epic, or maybe a 9wt. Scott, both should be abel to handle the fish as they are still well under 20lb fish at this particular resevoir.
From this thread I've pieced together that it might be easier casting the epic all day although its a heavier rod because the stroke is slower even though i doubt it would score a lower swing wieght score in any test than the faster action scott.
I also learned that using a heavier line on whichever of the rods i use is going to help me throw the the big flies because wind resistance is wind resistance, whether its weather or feathers and rabbit fur.
 
#111 ·
Rob, if you're still out there, I love my burkheimer 9ft 6wt classic. I cast it for about 5 minutes and went and listed my 6wt zenith, and recently got a 691 sage one that i was really impressed with and super light in hand but it strained my elbow to get it to perform well.
The burk is a pleasure on every level except maybe the looong cast which I fail at consistently with any rod. I also agree cortland 444 is a great fly line.
 
#113 ·
Rob, if you're still out there, I love my burkheimer 9ft 6wt classic. I cast it for about 5 minutes and went and listed my 6wt zenith, and recently got a 691 sage one that i was really impressed with and super light in hand but it strained my elbow to get it to perform well.
The burk is a pleasure on every level except maybe the looong cast which I fail at consistently with any rod. I also agree cortland 444 is a great fly line.
Glad you like the 690. It is my opinion that if you want to learn to cast far well get a double taper and learn to carry line in the air. It's much more efficient to carry 50 feet of line and shoot to more than to carry 30 feet and shoot another 40.

Also you'll find your loop will be more stable if you minimize the amount of you haul into your back cast and try to release it onnthe forward cast only. That's something i struggle with cause it feels so good to shoot it into thr back cast.
Good luck.
 
#121 ·
View attachment 91120
View attachment 91121

Above is a chart for the Rio Outbound, and the second chart is the AFFTA approved weights. I am looking for a line for my Sage, and was questioning how far out of spec many lines are from MOST manufacturers, not just Rio.
Now I know it's wise go up or down a size as needed to adjust for gear and conditions, but look at the above for a minute. I know Outbounds are meant to shoot and not cast, BUT the Rio is 50% heavier than the spec. I think a few years ago, all the rage was to go a line weight or 2 heavier, and the manufacturers jumped on that by implying you could cast farther that way. This might be true for shooting line out, but for casting it's a different story.
Lets say I bite on the marketing, and need a new 5 wt line. I buy a 6 to put a heavy load on a 5 wt because that's the trend...I wind up with a 240 grain (6 wt) on a 5 manufactured for a 140 grain.

Kreh has a great article on flexibility in adjusting equipment,
http://www.scientificanglers.com/pl...s/how-choose-right-fly-line-weight-lefty-kreh
but how much is too much on marketing lines SO FAR out of spec? Kreh says you might even go 2 line sizes heavier if needed, which could waste my $80 by purchasing a 275 grain, 7 wt Outbound line on my 5 wt that was supposedly designed for 140 grains.

Seems trivial now that I type it, but I think the standard needs to be reeled back in line with spec, or why have the spec in the first place.

Rant over....
The standards are irrelevant these days. Here's a couple of reasons why:

1. 30' was chosen back in a time when most lines had shooting heads under 30'. I can't think of a single line made nowadays with a head smaller than 30'. I don't think this is a bad thing. Heads are now tailored to specific line uses. It'd be like trying to hold construction workers' tools to the standards used in the 1800s, or construction practices to those common back then. What is now common and important did not exist or was impossible when the original "standards" were made. Which brings me to #2.

2. Only measuring the weight of fly line is no longer very useful. When the "standards" were created, tapers were impossible. Today's lines have very specific tapers designed for very specific line uses. Weight tells you nothing about the taper, which is why so many line boxes have a diagram of the taper on the back.
 
#132 ·
You developed "the best rods on the planet" for 15 years - and now you stock the bait cooler at sportsmen's warehouse... something doesn't add up.
Swimmy, This attitude right here is why i hated working with most of the locals in Bozeman, loved the tourists but the locals with their superiority complex thinking they knew more than everyone at Sportsman's.

Matt you are also a couple years behind I haven't worked there for a couple years now almost 3 actually. but i'd rather put maggots in cooler that deal with people who look down on others.

maybe things don't add up because you have no clue who i am.
 
#133 ·
Swimmy, This attitude right here is why i hated working with most of the locals in Bozeman, loved the tourists but the locals with their superiority complex thinking they knew more than everyone at Sportsman's.

Matt you are also a couple years behind I haven't worked there for a couple years now almost 3 actually. but i'd rather put maggots in cooler that deal with people who look down on others.

maybe things don't add up because you have no clue who i am.
I don't look down on you. I tell you when you're making bad arguments. I also give credit when they're not bad arguments. You made bad arguments in this thread. I also think you overstated your work with Burkheimer, who is a great rod builder, and I was admittedly harsh with you. I don't think I would even reply to your comments as much if you didn't make so many oversimplified broad claims that just aren't factual.
 
#141 ·
I have to wonder how many folks who are of the "old rods rule, new rods are marketing hype" mentality fish saltwater.
or anything other than trout, for that matter...
If you aren't using a vintage rod, AFTMA approved line, and fishing for trout in freshwater are you really even fly fishing?
 
#143 ·
As soon as someone makes a line bettet than the cortland 444 I'll pay more for a line.
Rio sure isn't doing it.
You are like my coworker who swears the automobile was perfected with the Mercury Cougar in the 70s. Or that there was no room for improvement on shit he desinged in the 80s. Maybe that's true for him or from his perspective, but it's just one dude's opinion. Your opinion is not fact and does not match the vast majority of people's. So I'm glad you're happy with your old shit for how and where you fish, but it is absolutely not true that there have been no improvements in the rod or line industry in the last 20 years. Stop trolling.
 
#146 ·
@Rob Allen I have a serious question for you. I'm going to the extreme just to see if you mean what you say or if I mis-understand you. Say we're going musky fishing. We will be casting 10" long flies with lots of drag in the air. What rod and line do you show up with?

Because if I take your posts at face value I would assume you will bring a medium/slow action and a double taper line and that you will aerialize at least 60' of line trying to cast that big ass fly. You'd probably need a damn 14wt to get a line with enough mass to handle that fly. If this is not your answer then don't you think that maybe your broad statements and rigid ideals are maybe a bit mis-guiding to many?

Me? I'm perfectly happy with a modern fast action 10wt rod and a heavy integrated shooting head line. BTW if I call up any rod makers that's what they'll recommend for line and wt to cast these flies. So I'll take them at their word that I'm not abusing the rod.
 
#150 ·
@Rob Allen I have a serious question for you. I'm going to the extreme just to see if you mean what you say or if I mis-understand you. Say we're going musky fishing. We will be casting 10" long flies with lots of drag in the air. What rod and line do you show up with?

Because if I take your posts at face value I would assume you will bring a medium/slow action and a double taper line and that you will aerialize at least 60' of line trying to cast that big ass fly.
I'd like to see him do that for an entire day....chances are he wouldn't last more than an hour.
 
#148 ·
Honestly. Wouldn't it just be easier for rods to just be listed with a grain range like two handers. And lines with a 30ft weight and total head weight.
Possibly. Probably not with 5 weight and under. As you get higher in weight, the specific fish you're targeting determines the line you want, and the way the weight is distributed in the head can become more important than the total weight of the head. There are too many variables to be able to really simplify things as well as we would all like. Isn't that part of what makes fly fishing great though? We can spend our entire lives learning as much as we can about fly fishing, and there's always more to learn.
 
#152 · (Edited)
Sorry Rob, but what works for you doesn't necessarily mean that it would work for 99% of other anglers. Once again, your posts are full of OPINION, not facts. Much of this "advice" you give is what you're saying most fly shops do....give bad advice. Your "advice" is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

If you've ever fished for muskies or tiger muskies, you'd actually know that it's never blind casting....no one just gets in the water and starts casting willy nilly (at least I've never seen that happen, that would seem a little ridiculous). It's all about casting to likely fish holding structure, whatever that may be in the area you're fishing.

edit: yes, I fish 10-12wts for tigers, but with shooting heads = easier to cast large flies all day with minimal false casting = actually FISHING more. Have fun false casting your 12wt with your standard 12wt line and a 10" fly 15 times...
 
#153 ·
Sorry Rob, but what works for you doesn't necessarily mean that it would work for 99% of other anglers. Once again, your posts are full of OPINION, not facts. Much of this "advice" you give is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.
That's certainly your opinion.

Fishing for muskies in any other way just doesn't sound fun to me.
Casting muskie flies on anything less than a 10 is pretty much rod abuse just a matter of time regardless of the line you are using.
Just like big intruders on a 6 wt spey or a sex dungeon on your 5wt.
 
#179 ·
can't we all at least agree that we're all assholes?

probably not...

The biggest problem I've always had in any of this, are the rigidity and belief that one particular method/materials are THE BEST for everyone....well, ok, it may THE BEST for you, but not 95% of other people. Hell, what works great for me may not work for even 99% of other people...thankfully, I don't really care.
 
#180 ·
View attachment 91120
View attachment 91121

Above is a chart for the Rio Outbound, and the second chart is the AFFTA approved weights. I am looking for a line for my Sage, and was questioning how far out of spec many lines are from MOST manufacturers, not just Rio.
Now I know it's wise go up or down a size as needed to adjust for gear and conditions, but look at the above for a minute. I know Outbounds are meant to shoot and not cast, BUT the Rio is 50% heavier than the spec. I think a few years ago, all the rage was to go a line weight or 2 heavier, and the manufacturers jumped on that by implying you could cast farther that way. This might be true for shooting line out, but for casting it's a different story.
Lets say I bite on the marketing, and need a new 5 wt line. I buy a 6 to put a heavy load on a 5 wt because that's the trend...I wind up with a 240 grain (6 wt) on a 5 manufactured for a 140 grain.

Kreh has a great article on flexibility in adjusting equipment,
http://www.scientificanglers.com/pl...s/how-choose-right-fly-line-weight-lefty-kreh
but how much is too much on marketing lines SO FAR out of spec? Kreh says you might even go 2 line sizes heavier if needed, which could waste my $80 by purchasing a 275 grain, 7 wt Outbound line on my 5 wt that was supposedly designed for 140 grains.

Seems trivial now that I type it, but I think the standard needs to be reeled back in line with spec, or why have the spec in the first place.

Rant over....
View attachment 91120
View attachment 91121

Above is a chart for the Rio Outbound, and the second chart is the AFFTA approved weights. I am looking for a line for my Sage, and was questioning how far out of spec many lines are from MOST manufacturers, not just Rio.
Now I know it's wise go up or down a size as needed to adjust for gear and conditions, but look at the above for a minute. I know Outbounds are meant to shoot and not cast, BUT the Rio is 50% heavier than the spec. I think a few years ago, all the rage was to go a line weight or 2 heavier, and the manufacturers jumped on that by implying you could cast farther that way. This might be true for shooting line out, but for casting it's a different story.
Lets say I bite on the marketing, and need a new 5 wt line. I buy a 6 to put a heavy load on a 5 wt because that's the trend...I wind up with a 240 grain (6 wt) on a 5 manufactured for a 140 grain.

Kreh has a great article on flexibility in adjusting equipment,
http://www.scientificanglers.com/pl...s/how-choose-right-fly-line-weight-lefty-kreh
but how much is too much on marketing lines SO FAR out of spec? Kreh says you might even go 2 line sizes heavier if needed, which could waste my $80 by purchasing a 275 grain, 7 wt Outbound line on my 5 wt that was supposedly designed for 140 grains.

Seems trivial now that I type it, but I think the standard needs to be reeled back in line with spec, or why have the spec in the first place.

Rant over....
Mr . Marklarson- - - - My head hurts after reading the expert's response that may have strayed from your original post. I can not see were you have re-entered the conversation.
I would agree that over weight lines may be used by folks or poorly communicated by manufactures. Example: In the past I used 280 gr. of 30 ft. Shooting Head as specified for a 10 wt. SH Orvis graphite fly rod. Using one size up ( 11 wt.) a 330 weight, I could over hand shoot more mono running line for distance. Using 400 gr. as recommended by a manufacturer, the rod was clearly over loaded carrying 30 ft., gave extremely "clunky" performance & strain on the tip section. Similar Example: With my 8 wt. DH Skagit 8143 fly rod 25 ft. of approximate 570 gr. Head & 10 ft. of T-14 as specified, it under hand casts nicely. A 29 ft. of 680 gr. Head also works, but with more than that I feel the tip staining. Yes, one should be careful not to over load & watch what line folks recommend. I do find my 8 wt. Spey rod to be considerably "stronger" than my 10 wt. SH rod when it comes to handling steelhead & salmon. When it comes to being a "good" fly caster, in the past it was said to practice with a DT fly line and that very good casters could carry a full line. Unfortunately, I have never been able to cast any were near a full fly line, but that's O.K. by me.
 
#181 ·
In my world double taper lines CAN get it done, but they are flat out nowhere near as effecient as an integrated shooting head and that's really not open to debate.

False casting a bunch when you just saw that coho jump 60' out= You most likely are not going to catch that fish. Period.

False casting means your fly is in the air. A day on the sound is all about having your fly in the water as much as possible. I don't personally know of a fishery where you make more casts in a day than saltwater fly fishing on the sound. The less false casts you make not only is your fly in the water longer, you're also burning less energy and throughout a day making hundreds and hundreds of casts that makes a big difference on how worn out you get.

There is simply too much variation in the type of fly fishing people do to make absolute statements. The 444 is probably a fantastic line for trout fishing on smaller streams. But it is flat NOT the best line for fishing out here on the sound. Nor is it the best line for fishing pike or musky, nor is it the best line for fishing the ocean etc etc etc.

Different strokes for different folks. Most of us understand that. Rob doesn't, and thats fine. He can do it his way, I've no problem with that. But no matter how concrete he makes his statements, they are true ONLY to him, and most of us know that as well.
 
#183 ·
There is simply too much variation in the type of fly fishing people do to make absolute statements. The 444 is probably a fantastic line for trout fishing on smaller streams. But it is flat NOT the best line for fishing out here on the sound. Nor is it the best line for fishing pike or musky, nor is it the best line for fishing the ocean etc etc etc.

Different strokes for different folks. Most of us understand that. Rob doesn't, and thats fine. He can do it his way, I've no problem with that. But no matter how concrete he makes his statements, they are true ONLY to him, and most of us know that as well.
You said it better than I could. I think I have too much pent up frustration from having to fix line-to-rod problems where customers would come into the shop with a line not matched to a rod for the situation they were fishing in. Many times the excuse would be that they know some really amazing fly fisherman who said that this was the only way to properly line their rod. Now I have to wonder how many times Rob is responsible for when I've had to do a 30 minute casting lesson with someone, determined that the line they bought was not a good fit, and had to sell them a new line that worked better for what they were doing.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top