Author Topic: Fluorocarbon vs. Mono  (Read 3930 times)

longnstrait

  • New Creeker
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Fluorocarbon vs. Mono
« on: July 15, 2014, 02:56:21 PM »
What's everyone using as their line of choice lately. Fluorocarbon? Mono? Mono on the spool and Fluorocarbon for leader? 4lb. with 2lb. leader? I need to replace the line on a couple of my reels and I would like to hear from the knowledgeable folks on here that are always so generous with their tips and advice. I mostly use spinning reels with bubble and fly, Thomas buoyants,  and sometimes even dunk power bait in a lake. I have always used mono in the past thinking that the line was so light it wasn't worth the extra cost to go to fluorocarbon for trout but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if I will catch more fish.

wshawkins

  • East Side Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3547
  • Got to love the Eastern Sierra
    • View Profile
Re: Fluorocarbon vs. Mono
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2014, 07:10:24 AM »
I did try Fluoro on my main line for a couple of seasons on one of my poles and there were pluses and minuses.

The good:  Fluoro is near invisible, good strength, small diameter, low stretch, good sensitivity, high abrasion resistance.  Your thinking whatís not to like right?

The Bad:  Fluoro is stiff so makes for poor casting.  Mono, on the other hand will cast a perfect circle.  It lays much nicer on a spool and reduces backlashes. It will also lay higher out of the water, just like its fly line companion.  Fluoro has poor knot tying.  You have to tie very clean knots or you lose your bait.  Low stretch can be a negative.  Example:  when a fish makes a last minute run near the shore, when only a very short length of line is out.  Youíll most likely lose that fish on Fluoro.  But line stretch on Mono will buy you those extra seconds to get to the bail or the spool release to let some line out, thus avoiding the one-that-got-away story.  Itís also easier to kink fluoro line which results in a weak spot on the line.  Fluoro is expensive; at least twice amount of mono line.  Mono is more forgiving to mistakes by the angler.  Also if youíre fishing with dry flies, you donít want fluoro as it sinks.

A lot of anglers, me included, use Fluorocarbon (2 lb.) as a leader while depending on Mono (4 lb.) as their main line since it's easier and more reliable to use these lines on my spinning reels. 
"It isn't the mountains ahead that wear you out, it's the grain of sand in your shoe."

playingmenace

  • Eastern Sierra Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1783
    • View Profile
Re: Fluorocarbon vs. Mono
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 2014, 10:32:20 AM »
Well said hawk, I agree with everything mentioned. I wasn't overly impressed with the flouro, and do not use it except for tippet.

I would only add, as the last time this subject came up, is that it's always best to moisten your knots prior to synching them down.
Life without music, laughter, and an Eastern Slope BBQ would be a mistake.

Remember Wounded Warriors

longnstrait

  • New Creeker
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Fluorocarbon vs. Mono
« Reply #3 on: July 16, 2014, 05:59:38 PM »
Thanks Guys,
I'll take your advice and have a slice of pie with the couple of bucks I save!

Topwater Terry

  • Moderator
  • Eastern Sierra Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1052
    • View Profile
Re: Fluorocarbon vs. Mono
« Reply #4 on: July 16, 2014, 10:43:52 PM »
I would say most trout fishing is prolly going to work better with Flouro.  Most trout waters are clear,  and the flouro becomes virtually invisible underwater. 
Once I arrive at Tom's Place...well,  you know...nothing else matters...

Scout

  • Eastern Sierra Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 1063
    • View Profile
Re: Fluorocarbon vs. Mono
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2014, 10:26:35 AM »
Maybe the most important thing to consider is the fact that flourocarbon will NEVER biodegrade...anything you may leave behind, even if inadvertantly, will be there forever....
Ralph Cutter wrote an excellent article about this in "California Fly Fisher" a couple of months ago, it seems most concientious flyfishers are taking this into account, no matter what other benefits flourocarbon may give.

Jmcclure83

  • Junior Creeker
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: Fluorocarbon vs. Mono
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2014, 07:18:57 AM »
 :clap: Scout