Garrison 215

[mrampant]

Can someone give me some idea what line is suitable for this rod? I am expecting it to come out at about a 7 weight.
Cheers,
Mark

[Mike McGuire]

RodDNA has it as an 8 weight as does the David Ray taper library at Hexrod. YMMV

Mike

[mrampant]

I can work with that, I planned on a 8 next time but now is good.
Mark

[Tom Smithwick]

There seems to be some sort of problem going on with the 215 in the taper libraries. In my copy of RodDNA, it is not entered correctly at all, and also lists the 221 as a 7 weight, and the 215 as an 8 weight, when in fact, the opposite looks to be true. I have cast the 221 with an 8 weight, and it was very sweet. I have not cast the 215, but it looks more like a 7 weight to me, if anything on the light side. Also be careful with the upper ferrule size on the 215. It was listed incorrectly in the first edition of "The Book" and I am not sure if it was corrected in the later edition.

[TXTrout]

I would agree with Tom's comments. I would fish the 215 as a 6wt. Most look at it a s a 6/7. The 221 was listed as a modern 8wt. Some like it as a 7wt.

[mrampant]

OH, This just makes it so much more interesting. The 221 was the planned next rod, maybe I'll get the 8wt with that one.
What was the issue with the ferrule on the 215?
Mark

[Tom Smithwick]

Mark - "The Book" shows the top ferrule as a 14/64, when it should be an 11. That one is fixed in RodDNA. Another one that eluded proof reading is the 55" dimension on the 209 taper. It is in the book, and in the databases as .234, when it obviously ought to be .224. Obviously just typos. I used to do some technical manual writing, been there, done that.

[mrampant]

Damn! I put aside a 14/64 for that build without reading the dimensions, but I have a 11 for a different (221) rod. I was going to make it in a 3 pcs; I'll have to get another ferrule to replace it and look at making another rod to use the 14/64, something in a 6wt?
Oh the joy, another rod!
I'll make a note in my copy of those errors, Thanks Tom.
Cheers,
Mark

[64Emmons]

Here is yet another example of why it might be s better idea to learn how to cook rather than follow someone else's directions on the back of the box of brownie mix.

[fishbum]

Here is yet another example of why it might be s better idea to learn how to cook rather than follow someone else's directions on the back of the box of brownie mix.

Just one more reason I have pretty much lost all interest in the Classic Fly Rod Forum.

Jerry

[HDH]

Just one more reason I have pretty much lost all interest in the Classic Fly Rod Forum.

Jerry

Which is sad, because I for one have always enjoyed and learned from your posts.

[paxlev]

I know this is way late but I have a 215 8' 2 piecer and it definitely a 6 weight. Have fished it .a couple of times below the reservoir on the upper Sac. Felt a little under gunned with the rod.

[mrampant]

Funny that this thread came back up again,
I went out to the park last week to play with the 215 and a 212e; First I used the 212e with a 6 line and then the 215. The 215 felt ok but not that exciting, the next day back in the park I put a Triangle taper Wulff line in a 7 weight and it came alive. In close right out to my usual max distance of around 22-23 meters and then a bit more, easy to control. A new best friend for small saltwater and usual NZ fish I should think.
Cheers,
Mark

[mrampant]

I am thinking about making this taper again in a three piece and hollowing it. I feel that this will make a beautiful rod for NZ future fishing as it will be small enough (3pce) to carry around and the action really appeals to me. Hollowing it will put a little more "zip" in it.
Cheers,
Mark