I (may) have a stupid question...

I was sitting down to tie up some really big articulated bugs for an upcoming trip, and something dawned on me. Could a guy manipulate/combined two already tied flies, to make one big articulated one?

I'm sure just about anything can be done, but has anyone tried it? I'm going to give it a shot, but was wondering if anyone here has, and if they would be willing to share 'what works, and what doesn't'?

I was thinking of putting the hook through the eye of the other, then bending it to keep it on. Or tying some 20 lb backing, and going that route.

By the way, I would only do this with flies that I have already tied. Otherwise, I'd just start new one.


Canyon Lurker
hmm, ive never thought of that before. no insight on what may be the best route, but i bet you could make some big musky/pike flies that way.

Big E

Active Member
It could be done. Problem is that you may break the hook while trying to bend it and you'd have problems trying to get the connection bent properly to allow for the articulation while establishing a decent enough bend to not allow the other hook to come off.

Then the other problem that you will have with browns and salmon is that they will definitely use this connection as leverage to come unbuttoned. So if you have any type of binding, you may loose some fish.

Personally, I'd just tie a new front fly and connect the other fly you want to use on the back with fireline or beadalon.

Jim Ficklin

Genuine Montana Fossil
Big E makes a good point; I like the "trail a new fly with a pre-tied one" approach. This would be an excellent way to recycle some old Bass flies, in my case.

And as for "stupid questions," Dave . . . no harm in that and I've always been eminently-qualified to ask these . . .
You cold slip the fly over the first hook and then put a few wraps of mono leader around the initial hook to hold the second on, much like the dam you're supposed to build in front of a fish skull head to dold it on.


If you use wire to connect the rear fly to the bend of the hook of the first fly, I don't see why you couldn't do that if that's what you're after. I'm not sure of the benefit of a pattern that gives the impression of one fly trying to mount the other but hey, maybe the fish would find that very intriguing. :)


Active Member
I think you'll have a more enjoyable trip fishing flies you trust to hold fish and provide the loose articulated action that makes them so deadly.

That being said, most sculpin patterns essentially use a woolly bugger as the back fly, so if you have lots of those laying around half your work is done.

About 5 years ago, I came up with a tube head sculpin that could be slipped over any woolly bugger to enlarge the profile of a fly. It would allow you to tie just a few time consuming heads and slip them over any woolly bugger. It wouldn't have to be a deer hair head, as you could incorporate wool, lead eyes, etc. One disadvantage at the time was you'd lose the articulated motion.


Until now.... If you use a large enough junction tubing, you can tie your line onto a modified swivel and simply hook any woolly bugger to the back while maintaining the desired articulated motion. If you subscribe to the "browns hit the head of the fly theory", you're still missing a hook up front. But without having to tie multiple articulated flies, it allows quick changes of the back fly to find what color is working or replace a dull/worn hook.

Latest posts