Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
Shawnmorrow, c_mack, Rainwater, 0409, Weng
105918 Registered Users
Top Posters
TexDawg 86346
hopalong 78578
Pilothawk 75166
JDavis7873® 67382
John175 ® 65063
FattyMcButterpants 60793
Derek 🐝 58502
Tritonman 57644
LoneStarSon® 53410
SkeeterRonnie 53014
facebook
Forum Stats
105918 Members
60 Forums
804881 Topics
10172271 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
TFF Team Angler

Registered: 04/04/14
Posts: 3066
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 Celebrity

Registered: 06/27/09
Posts: 5302
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
TFF Team Angler

Registered: 04/04/14
Posts: 3066
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