You all kidding me?

[davemaine]

OTOH, the AFTMA system is imperfect and sort of arbitrary (weight of first 30 feet of line not including level tip...).

It seems to me that line manufacturers are just doing what they do: trying to innovate and come up with a wide range of salable products.

It's up to the consumer to read the fine print and try out different lines.

[RaspberryPatch]

Flykuni3, I have similar feelings about backing, and it is not about casting, it is about how to present the fly, which includes mending. I think my longest effective dry fly that I do recall, fine trout on small BMOs, would be 40-45' fly line out, plus rod, plus leader. At this distance, presentation management on the drift is limited. And when you get into a fight, do you really have any chance to land that fish when you have 100 yards out! River bends, rock, et cetera are not going to make this happen.

This is one reason why I like the Cortland Ultralight and Guideline Fario - summer presentations.

So the only times, I am worry about long line --- spey casting and a good size river (my home river in Eastern Ontario is good for this, or Tokachi River (Hokkaido) Delta) and for backing when I am on the flats in the salt (but coral and mangroves can be a B&^%$!), so often I am not afforded 100m.

[Don Andersen]

About 30 years ago a friend wandered over to my camp after breakfast packing a rod, he tells me that he had just bought this 2 wt, rod and he could NOT make it cast well. Bear in mind, this guy is a good caster. He wanted to know if I could fix his “2” weight.
Pulled out reels with 2, 3, 4 & 5 weight lines on them. Took till I got to 4 weight before the rod came alive. Called him back and had him cast the rod. “What did you do” he asked. Put the right weight line on it - a 4. But he sputtered “it’s a 2 weight”. To this day, he still refers it as a 2 weight.

And for those older folks, FF nag at one time has an article on light line weight rods whose author acquired a bunch from various manufacturers and in his opinion, none of them cast the line weight printed on the rod. FF mag. Must be congratulated for the balls to do this. Too bad nobody else does.

Don

[bluesjay]

Hi Guys, When we owned the Orvis shop we went a 'new product' meeting in the fall. It was the very year their 1 wt. was introduced. As I was casting in close the rep quietly said, " That's how to use it, it's a three weight."

Jay Edwards

[BigTJ]

I agree about the distance thing getting ridiculous. If the fly shows were doing it right, they would set up an accuracy course on water at 30 to 50 feet and the guys that could put a fly in something the size of teacup, over and over, would have, should have, the bragging rights. Only once in the last 20 years have I caught a fish at 70 feet and it was because I was taking out slack as the line was dropping and the fish took the fly as it touched the water. Most of my tailwater fish have always been 35 to 45 feet and sometimes at 50 with a swung wet. Distance is only as good as your setting reflexes and your accuracy.

I catch 90% of my trout at less than 20 ft. The only time I ever fish over 45 ft these days is for summer runs. My hooked to landed ratio is up close to 80% as a consequence. What's not to like about that ?

John

[Flykuni3]

Cases in point re how damn stiff today's nose cone rods have become: I bought the Gatti that was offered on this very board, and it arrived safely and in described condition. (travel and beginner rod if you wondered). It's an 8'6 for a four, but it feels like a six or even a seven to me. I may have to look into casting with a couple of WFs for the best feel.

On the other hand, I have two old SF era Scott 802s, fantastic light trout rods with pleasing medium-fast actions for a DT3 line, and an older 905-5 Reddington that is true-rated for a five, and has a great feel for a 9' graphite (for me). Used the Reddington to horse in some fat trout on the Madison, laid that thing sideways and fought them out of the current on 4x tippets, man, was that some fish dragging, inartistic and efficient. But fun trying to take pics of fish that need two hands to handle. I was working in a fly shop when the Sage RPLs appeared, and well remember how stiff they felt in hand. Word then was "they work better with a line higher." And wonder of wonders, they've become something of a cult classic.

[Doug K]

thanks Don for the investigation and data. It's something I've known about for some time but had never investigated in that kind of detail.. the rot is deep it seems. I miss the good old days when the AFTMA standard meant something.

Acquired a couple of newish graphite rods recently - the Grays 4wt is a perfectly good 6wt rod, the Cabelas 3wt is a surprisingly nice 5wt..

My graphites from the 80s, Fenwick HMG and Orvis Western, are true to weight. Also a Sage LL (light line light weight) from the mid-90s is a true weight. When I bought that rod, I'd cast a lot of 9' 5wts to compare, using my own DT 5wt line. All those graphite rods were OK then.. Thomas & Thomas, Orvis, Loomis, etc. Though I do remember as Flykuni says, the Sage RPL was too stiff and fast for me, much preferred the LL.

These days I just buy Cortland 444, Hook & Hackle brand budget lines, Barrio or 406 lines. I know those to be true..
Or, grimly and exhaustively research manufacturer web site and reviews, for any of the big name lines, Rio, SA, etc. Usually a 'delicate' in the description of the line is a good signal ;-) of an accurate weight..

[Flykuni3]

Doug, I had a Fenwick 8.5 five line boron, it was amazingly sweet.

[JohnMD1022]

Some years ago, when a new Sage was about $300-350 a friend appeared with a new rod of that species calling for a 5 wt line. In truth, it took a 7 or 8 to make it useable.

After messing with this thing for a bit, I handed him my custom Walton Powell Hexagraph 5 wt and said “Try this”.

Another few minutes and he said “Be right back”.

He walked back to his car and returned with his Battenkill.

The Sage was never seen again.

[JohnMD1022]

I agree about the distance thing getting ridiculous. If the fly shows were doing it right, they would set up an accuracy course on water at 30 to 50 feet and the guys that could put a fly in something the size of teacup, over and over, would have, should have, the bragging rights. Only once in the last 20 years have I caught a fish at 70 feet and it was because I was taking out slack as the line was dropping and the fish took the fly as it touched the water. Most of my tailwater fish have always been 35 to 45 feet and sometimes at 50 with a swung wet. Distance is only as good as your setting reflexes and your accuracy.

I don’t know what you are doing wrong, but as everyone who has ever read Trout by Ernie Schweibert knows that he regularly caught trout at 80-90 feet. Moreover, they were all 3 lbs or more. Same thing with salmon, but they were all over 40 lbs.

I miss, prick, lose 2/3-3/4 of the fish I raise, these days, and that’s generally inside 40 feet.

[billems]

I still get that bit in fly shops when they don't have a double taper in the whole shop:

"Why do you want a double taper?"

(Too tired to get into all that). "Do you know where I can get one?"

[j.robillard]

While the current fly line world can be annoying. I do appreciate some 1/2 heavy lines. In particular, I get a lot of fishing hours out of the mid range SA Frequency lines and you can half weight stagger them. For whole weights get the DT Frequency line. They're true to weight and level after the initial head taper. Then get the WF Boost lines. They're a 1/2 step heavy and also level tapers after the initial head. Then you can really find a sweet spot for all your rods. I have Marquis reels with 4, 4.5, 5 ,5.5, 6 , and 6.5 weight level taper lines.