Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
JDM1911, aalex.ander, Kellys Guide Service, Tex_T64, S Page
105674 Registered Users
Top Posters
TexDawg 85856
hopalong 78097
Pilothawk 75009
JDavis7873® 67382
John175 ® 64725
FattyMcButterpants 60790
Derek 🐝 58204
Tritonman 57542
LoneStarSon® 53221
SkeeterRonnie 52973
facebook
Forum Stats
105674 Members
60 Forums
851007 Topics
12124604 Posts

Max Online: 36273 @ 01/23/13 02:34 PM
Topic Options
#11170997 - 10/18/15 10:50 AM Mono vs. Fluorocarbon Visibility
J-Moe Offline
TFF Team Angler

Registered: 04/04/14
Posts: 3004
Loc: Brenham, TX
I spend a lot of time fishing for sunfish and bluegill. Bluegill are supposed to be line shy. Fluorocarbon is supposed to be invisible to fish. I have fished with both 4 lb. mono and 6 lb fluorocarbon tippets on my fly rod. It actually seems I've had better luck with the mono. This got me to thinking.

Does the displacement of water by the fishing line matter as much as visibility when it comes to fish detecting something out of the ordinary?

Top
#11171166 - 10/18/15 02:00 PM Re: Mono vs. Fluorocarbon Visibility [Re: J-Moe]
Curt0407 Online   content
TFF Celebrity

Registered: 06/27/09
Posts: 5242
Loc: Mineola, formerly Arlington
I would go with whichever line is the thinnest and allows the most natural looking movement to the bait.
_________________________
I am an un-redeemable deplorable.

Top
#11175104 - 10/20/15 02:17 PM Re: Mono vs. Fluorocarbon Visibility [Re: Curt0407]
J-Moe Offline
TFF Team Angler

Registered: 04/04/14
Posts: 3004
Loc: Brenham, TX
Originally Posted By: Curt0407
I would go with whichever line is the thinnest and allows the most natural looking movement to the bait.


Thanks Curt, the fact that the mono is thinner and also floats more than the fluorocarbon may be the key. That slower rate of decent and more natural presentation may matter more than the slight difference in visibility.

Top



© 1998-2017 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide