Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
jlcotten50, Heath Grant, GolferMan, dyollpster, Sirjr
105130 Registered Users
Top Posters
TexDawg 85206
hopalong 77654
Pilothawk 74789
JDavis7873® 67382
John175 ® 63708
FattyMcButterpants 60667
Derek 🐝 57776
Tritonman 57476
SkeeterRonnie 52916
LoneStarSon® 52894
facebook
Forum Stats
105130 Members
60 Forums
844672 Topics
12044824 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: 2939
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: 5163
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: 2939
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