Page 1 of 1

Tippet: nylon or FC?

PostPosted: Sat Apr 23, 2016 11:58 pm
by gogmagog66
Hi guys, my question is just as the topic title.

Pros and cons for each one, according to your experience.

Tnx ;)

Re: Tippet: nylon or FC?

PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 7:31 am
by ferrulewax
Flurocarbon is superior in almost every way for nymph and wetfly fishing. In comparison to monofilament it sinks better and is less visable. For kebari and western nymphs I would argue that it is superior. With that siad, in my tenkara pack I carry monofilament... Why? Price.

The majority of times that I utilize my tenkara setup the fish are in areas with less pressure where fish are not line shy. So why not save some money? Also, in my tenkara pack I have elected to carry the minimal amount of crap possible and using a 5x flurocarbon line with a griffiths gnat is not near as doable as fishing a pheasant tail wih mono. So I only carry 5x mono. I belive mono is a better choice if you can only have one tippet, and you will be fishing small dries. Wih larger dries ( float better) and all nymphs I prefer fluro, but mono does fine. So I only carry mono as a jack of all trades.

Re: Tippet: nylon or FC?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 12:34 am
by gogmagog66
Thank you very much.
I think mono could also work very well with dry flies, isn't it?

Re: Tippet: nylon or FC?

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:59 am
by johnlaudenslager
Are we being sold a bill of goods about the significantly less visibility or "invisibility" of fluoro in water versus nylon? I recently bought a spool of Rio Flouroflex 5X, and already had a spool of Rio Powerflex nylon/copoly 5X. Put them together in a big vase of water, set the vase on an opaque table to mimic a stream bottom, back lit them variously with a flashlight and the sun and with several other backgrounds, and found them equally, easily visible.

Both samples measured .006" thick.

I actually believe the "science" that says fluoro has a refractive index closer to water than nylon does. What I don't believe is that this particular fluoro is less visible in water than this particular nylon. How could this fluoro not be less visible? I don't know. Some coating? Something else in the manufacturing process?

I can suggest that before you cough up the recurring cost differential, check a piece of your nylon and your fluoro in a glass of water. Maybe don't take the word of a seller as to strength or knot strength or abrasion resistance, either, but simply tie those wet pieces into either side of a hook eye with your favorite knot, and pull. Repeat a few times at least. If you are scientific enough to want to do a better test of abrasion resistance, I can't help you. I'm too lazy.