D?
Moderator: pvansch1
- henkverhaar
- Bamboo Fanatic
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: 07/02/16 15:37
- Location: Near the Geul...
Re: Dickerson 801510, 801610 or 801611?
#2I have no experience with Dickerson tapers whatsoever, but when comparing the numbers for these tapers as included in RodDNA with a] Dickerson's 2 pc tapers and b] my own tapers, I personally would opt for the 801611.
Re: Dickerson 801510, 801610 or 801611?
#3I own an original 801510 and a 861611. The 80 is a very nice 5 wt. has the umph for nymphing small flies. Th 86 is a great dry fly 5/6.
When u take a known taper an hollow it all else being equal, it will move up a line weight. Start changing the guides ,wraps ,varnish amount ,ferrule type and u r adjusting the rods line weight also. So many variables at play here modifying the original characteristics.
To your three choices as originals unmodified:
801510 will be a good 5, will handle small nymphs and streamers say #12 and below.
801610 is going to be stiffer in the butt, might feel tippy, might be a 5/6
801611 is going to be a 6, probably the rod u want. Again, hollowing, hardware selection, et al, will act on the characteristics too.
Carl
When u take a known taper an hollow it all else being equal, it will move up a line weight. Start changing the guides ,wraps ,varnish amount ,ferrule type and u r adjusting the rods line weight also. So many variables at play here modifying the original characteristics.
To your three choices as originals unmodified:
801510 will be a good 5, will handle small nymphs and streamers say #12 and below.
801610 is going to be stiffer in the butt, might feel tippy, might be a 5/6
801611 is going to be a 6, probably the rod u want. Again, hollowing, hardware selection, et al, will act on the characteristics too.
Carl