Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
Dardar, Craigc1, Wreched75, MinMirny, lakefork15
106376 Registered Users
Top Posters
TexDawg 86935
hopalong 78792
Pilothawk 75581
JDavis7873® 67385
John175 ® 65741
FattyMcButterpants 60793
Derek 🐝 58872
Tritonman 57723
LoneStarSon® 53711
SkeeterRonnie 53103
facebook
Forum Stats
106375 Members
61 Forums
862075 Topics
12252622 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: 3126
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: 5348
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: 3126
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