Does fluorocarbon really make a difference?

[WinterrunRon]

Every once in a while, I come across a subject that no matter how much I try to experiment and answer on my own, I just can't arrive at a conclusive result. So I thought I'd seek your experiences.

Here's the question:

Does fluorocarbon (touted as being near invisible under water, more abrasion resistant and more dense to sink faster than mono) really make a difference in hooking up or landing trout/steelhead/striper in clear water conditions based on your experience.

Here's my question stated another way: If you had only two spools with you and you were fishing a tournament, given the choice of using a thinner diameter mono or thicker diameter fuoro, your choice would be...? (in other words, do you think it's a thinner diameter that is more effective or the material it's made out of?

I know it's a broad question and there's lots of factors that come into play depending on many variables, but I'm looking for the, "in general" answer. In other words, price aside, what's your choice?

[dtp916]

I always use flouro in clear water and heavily pressured waters (some places I fish are both). I use mono for dry flies. I've seen John Barr hyping up "high grade flourocarbon tippet" on dry flies, but I honestly think a dry will be more supple and float the way I want it to with mono.

I think flouro is great, and since I'm fishing nymphs most of the time, I'm using flouro.

And to answer your question, if I was fishing in a tournament, my answer is it would depend on the conditions, water color, fly I was using, and the mood I was in

[Charlie Gonzales]

I dont think all flouro is thicker. I think that Gmax is stronger, thinner and near transparent compared to mono. Its been a long time since I have tested the two. But all I use is Gmax for stripers.

But flouro has very little use in fishing dry flies since it sinks, unless you want it to hang in the surface film.

Thens there's the knots. You either incease turns(triple surgeon,not double)or change knots, I use a non slip loop for just about everything.

JMO

[BigBill]

Is there really such a claim that it is more abrasion resistant than mono? I have found FC to be much less abrasion resistant than mono.

[jbird]

I use flourocarbon for nymphing. Theres no question it sinks faster. I almost never use dry flies for trout. Mainly cause the trout around here are mostly smolts. I think there are definitly circumstances where the transparency of flourocarbon can make all the difference in the world. For example, maybe with heavy shock leaders for laid up tarpon in clear water. Rooster fish can be some of the most selective gamefish i know of. I would always use flourocarbon for roosters. There is a place on klamath lake called crystral creek. The water is as clear as high mountain air. I wouldnt go there with anything but flourocarbon, its just not worth it to me. In clear conditions, you can easily see the difference between flouro and mono in the water. The mono glints sunlight and the flourocarbon doesnt. You can still see it, but it doesnt put off that glint of light.

Jay

[sacfly]

Every once in a while, I come across a subject that no matter how much I try to experiment and answer on my own, I just can't arrive at a conclusive result. So I thought I'd seek your experiences.

Here's the question:

Does fluorocarbon (touted as being near invisible under water, more abrasion resistant and more dense to sink faster than mono) really make a difference in hooking up or landing trout/steelhead/striper in clear water conditions based on your experience.

The answer is a simple No, fluorocarbon's "near invisibility" does not help. The learned Ralph Cutter has done experiments with 20 pound mono tied to a worm in clear water, and the trout would take the worm.

[jbird]

The answer is a simple No, fluorocarbon's "near invisibility" does not help. The learned Ralph Cutter has done experiments with 20 pound mono tied to a worm in clear water, and the trout would take the worm.

Thats a pretty poor example. Were not talking about worms here. A trout would probably take a worm from your hand.

J

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Is FC better than standard nylon mono?

Like many things in life, we will never get know for sure.

It doesn't go bad as fast as mono, it sinks faster and it does not transmit light. After that you are on your own.

We do not promote it to the general public but I can tell you that some of the top anglers and top guides use it when they think it is necessary.

I see it used on the shallow clear tropical flats when the wind is down.

I see it used in lakes too.

I personally like the fact that it is not supposed to break down like mono. This means I can feel confidant that it will not be rotten in a few years. For that reason it's all I use. I don't care if it catches more fish or not.

[Adam Grace]

When fishing for bass I find that I can fish the same tippet all day long catching multiple bass without changing my tippet when I use fluoro, that is not the case when I used to use mono for bass. Fluoro in my experience is MUCH more abrasion resistant than mono. Granted there are some monos out there that are designed to be more stiff or abrasion resistant but I would still put my money on fluoro material.

Fluoro is more dense so it sinks faster, for this reason I only use fluoro when fishing subsurface. I still use mono when fishing dries, I really like Frog Hair for fishing dries it's nice and supple and full of stretch to support lighter diameter tippets.

IMHO, fluoro is great for any type of fishing below the surface. Due to the abrasion resistance causing the tippet to last longer than mono I believe that the extra money required to buy fluoro can be very well spent!

[dtp916]

The answer is a simple No, fluorocarbon's "near invisibility" does not help. The learned Ralph Cutter has done experiments with 20 pound mono tied to a worm in clear water, and the trout would take the worm.

Thats a pretty poor example. Were not talking about worms here. A trout would probably take a worm from your hand.

J

Very true. that's an odd example.