Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
jthomas9, Nitroguy, LadyAngler11, Monarch Hunting Products, dericfulbright
103126 Registered Users
Top Posters
TexDawg 83647
hopalong 74931
Pilothawk 73790
JDavis7873® 67378
John175 ® 60935
FattyMcButterpants 60592
Tritonman 57163
Derek 56822
SkeeterRonnie 52571
LoneStarSon® 52405
facebook
Forum Stats
103126 Members
61 Forums
864463 Topics
11346509 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
Extreme Angler

Registered: 04/04/14
Posts: 2665
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 Team Angler

Registered: 06/27/09
Posts: 4911
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 Online   content
Extreme Angler

Registered: 04/04/14
Posts: 2665
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