Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
Eddie2, LMG, Biggwurm, MallardAssassin, abcdef519013
106801 Registered Users
Top Posters
TexDawg 87568
hopalong 78854
Pilothawk 75991
JDavis7873® 67386
John175 � 66194
FattyMcButterpants 60834
Derek 🐝 59306
Tritonman 57847
LoneStarSon® 54032
SkeeterRonnie 53185
facebook
Forum Stats
106801 Members
61 Forums
867670 Topics
12330070 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: 3139
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: 5386
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: 3139
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