Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
jfur, dburt2, AMG, ntxduffer, OKBlindHogg
108024 Registered Users
Top Posters
TexDawg 88644
hopalong 78895
Pilothawk 76394
John175® 67600
JDavis7873® 67390
FattyMcButterpants 60868
Derek 🐝 60289
Tritonman 57993
LoneStarSon® 54406
SkeeterRonnie 53367
facebook
Forum Stats
108024 Members
60 Forums
861381 Topics
12276236 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 Online   content
TFF Team Angler

Registered: 04/04/14
Posts: 3305
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: 5509
Loc: Mineola, formerly Arlington
I would go with whichever line is the thinnest and allows the most natural looking movement to the bait.

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

Registered: 04/04/14
Posts: 3305
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



© 1998-2018 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide