Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
BetterFisherThanMatt, YakinGundy, maxrob, masonjar, FayetteCountyFish
103544 Registered Users
Top Posters
TexDawg 84014
hopalong 75490
Pilothawk 74023
JDavis7873® 67380
John175 ® 61820
FattyMcButterpants 60638
Tritonman 57281
Derek 57020
SkeeterRonnie 52608
LoneStarSon® 52537
facebook
Forum Stats
103544 Members
61 Forums
869137 Topics
11404651 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
Extreme Angler

Registered: 04/04/14
Posts: 2739
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 Offline
TFF Team Angler

Registered: 06/27/09
Posts: 4980
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
Extreme Angler

Registered: 04/04/14
Posts: 2739
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



© 1998-2016 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide