Ultralite Lure Fishing Outfit.

[Newt]

DG - I have noticed that US rods tend to have quite a few more rings - but smaller - than a similar UK rod would. I haven't used the UK ones but from reading and some thinking I imagine the reduced number would give you greater casting distance but I'd be a bit leary of playing a hard fighting fish.

 

The man I catfished with last week has a 9 wt fly rod he's re-ringed for use with a spinning reel. He landed a river catfish of 24 lbs with it. Took a while but no problems. 9 ft rod with 12 or 13 rings I think.

 

Our spinning rods normally run at least a ring per foot of rod length past the handle and more with really limber rods. Casting rods will have even more since they are on top of the blank and it is harder to keep the line from touching the rod.

 

With the comments you quoted about more rings giving less line twist I have to wonder. I've seen quite a few posts about problems with line twist but have never noticed that much of a problem with my gear. Could be the higher ring count.

 

[ 04. August 2003, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[Peter Waller]

Re the line twist assertion. I use both multies and fixed spools on rods with similar amounts of rings. I don't get line twist on the multie set-up, I do on the fixed spool one. I can see the logic that more rings will iron out some of the kinks, and they probably do, but I blame the reel, not the quantity of rings. But, as Newt says, not much of a problem anyway. More likely to be caused by poor anti-kink devices and frantically spinning lures than anything, perhaps?

 

Newt, thanks for the recommendation. I've just bought a Mitchell 308 Gold to use on a Ron Thomson Gladiator U/L. Well pleased, a real cracker of a reel, thanks.

 

[ 05. August 2003, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newt:

DG - I have noticed that US rods tend to have quite a few more rings - but smaller - than a similar UK rod would. I haven't used the UK ones but from reading and some thinking I imagine the reduced number would give you greater casting distance but I'd be a bit leary of playing a hard fighting fish.

 

The man I catfished with last week has a 9 wt fly rod he's re-ringed for use with a spinning reel. He landed a river catfish of 24 lbs with it. Took a while but no problems. 9 ft rod with 12 or 13 rings I think.

 

Our spinning rods normally run at least a ring per foot of rod length past the handle and more with really limber rods. Casting rods will have even more since they are on top of the blank and it is harder to keep the line from touching the rod.

 

With the comments you quoted about more rings giving less line twist I have to wonder. I've seen quite a few posts about problems with line twist but have never noticed that much of a problem with my gear. Could be the higher ring count.

---

Yup.

 

It will be very interesting to read the calibre of Steve B's comments on the above, too

 

DG :cool:

 

[ 05. August 2003, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]

[The Diamond Geezer]

</font>

<font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Peter Waller:

...Newt, thanks for the recommendation. I've just bought a Mitchell 308 Gold .... Well pleased, a real cracker of a reel, thanks.

</font><hr />

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Following the same recommendation, AnglersNet Poster and originator of this very thread, PaulD, has written an ace article about it and his first forays into UL here in the Lure-angling section

 

Personally, having used some of the earlier so-called classic Mitchells, I've never got-on with their wobbly design, much prefering smooth, wobble-free reels, whatever speed I'm retrieving ... OTT on price I know, and a tad weak in the rear-drag department albeit "fighting drag", I still reckon the Shimano GT/Symetre/Stradic/etc 1000s with their Balanced and instant-stop Rotor, counter-balanced bail-arm and symmetrical, balanced double-handle ... take some beating. although I should also add that IMHO the rate of line retrieve (not just gear-ratio!) is a tad too high in the later models, the rate of line-retrieve being, of course, a function of both the spool diameter and the gearing ratio. Still rate them though

 

DG

 

<small>[ 05. August 2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]</small>

[Peter Waller]

Hi DG, re the Shimano. I once had a Stradic GTM 1000, and very nice quality it was too. Only a personal thing but I reckon those double handles just make the reel bulky and I wasn't comfortable with the rear drag, mighty small washers on a small reel. I can't compare like for like as I sold the Stradic but I can't find anything about the 308 with which I'm not comfortable.

 

By the way, you might find something of interest on the glossy mag thread! You will never guess who the pike angling culprit was, not in a milli-second, let alone a million seconds .

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Waller:

Hi DG, re the Shimano. I once had a Stradic GTM 1000, and very nice quality it was too. Only a personal thing but I reckon those double handles just make the reel bulky and I wasn't comfortable with the rear drag, mighty small washers on a small reel. I can't compare like for like as I sold the Stradic but I can't find anything about the 308 with which I'm not comfortable.

---

PW,

I agree with you about the small drag washers, but I just added a couple of extras ones and that seemed to cure the problem. Although you obviously found the reel bulky, weight-wise it isn't that heavy .. but maybe you have much bigger hands than me :confused:

 

DG

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Waller:

Hi DG, ...By the way, you might find something of interest on the glossy mag thread! You will never guess who the pike angling culprit was, not in a milli-second, let alone a million seconds

.

---

PW,

Haven't looked yet, but I bet whoever it was, he must be a right Charlie (in the phonetic alphabet sense )

DG :cool:

 

P.S.

Just checked .... and as you say, what a prunt he is

 

[ 05. August 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]

[Paul_D]

quote:

---

PW,

Haven't looked yet, but I bet whoever it was, he must be a right Charlie (in the phonetic alphabet sense )

DG

---

Didn't one of the other well know Broadland Pike guides (recently recommended on this site) also once get embroiled in a similar controversy where the same fish was quoted at two different weights and on different dates although the same bit of grass stuck to it gave it away. Or has my memory just become clouded...?

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul_D:

Didn't one of the other well know Broadland Pike guides (recently recommended on this site) also once get embroiled in a similar controversy where the same fish was quoted at two different weights and on different dates although the same bit of grass stuck to it gave it away. Or has my memory just become clouded...?

---

PW will know for sure but there are 2 John Watsons, the other lives/lived near Ely or somewhere like that, and I think that just might be the person of whom your memory serves you

 

DG

 

[ 05. August 2003, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]

[Peter Waller]

Nope, sorry, that's a new one on me. Will have to ask the Chief Super Inspector, Commander in Chief of the Piking Police, he's bound to know!

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Waller:

Nope, sorry, that's a new one on me.

---

Surely not, PW? :confused: Don't you remember? It was all about an Anglers Mail competition, a good few years back, and the photos of the other John Watson and his two allegedly different fish ... that John Watson was I think a fenman rather than a Norwich man and was renowned for catching good zander .. well, at least one, anyway

DG :cool:

 

[ 06. August 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]