|
Forums59
Topics1,039,647
Posts13,968,385
Members144,210
| |
Most Online39,925
Dec 30th, 2023
|
|
 Mono vs. Fluorocarbon Visibility
#11170997
10/18/15 03:50 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,567
J-Moe
OP
TFF Team Angler
|
|
OP
TFF Team Angler
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,567 |
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?
|
|
|
Re: Mono vs. Fluorocarbon Visibility
[Re: J-Moe]
#11171166
10/18/15 07:00 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,707
Curt0407
TFF Guru
|
|
TFF Guru
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,707 |
I would go with whichever line is the thinnest and allows the most natural looking movement to the bait.
|
|
|
Re: Mono vs. Fluorocarbon Visibility
[Re: Curt0407]
#11175104
10/20/15 07:17 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,567
J-Moe
OP
TFF Team Angler
|
|
OP
TFF Team Angler
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 4,567 |
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.
|
|
Moderated by banker-always fishing, chickenman, Derek 🐝, Duck_Hunter, Fish Killer, J-2, Jacob, Jons3825, JustWingem, Nocona Brian, Toon-Troller, Uncle Zeek, Weekender1
|
