Dedicated To The Smallest Of Skiffs banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
570 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So I know this debate has been beat to death. With all the talk of tarpon leaders recently, obviously gearing up for the season, It seems that the most mixed up part of everyone's leader recipe is when and if they use Mono/Flouro. Some guys use mono for the butt section, then flouro for the class/bite, some people the exact opposite, and some people straight flouro. The undeniable differences between the two being sink rate, stretch, and visibility. Mono floats, stretches more, but is more visible, flouro sinks, has less stretch, and is less visible.

I can see how people could argue their leader set up based on these properties and what they like their leader to do. But one argument that I have seen blatant disagreement on is the abrasion resistance. People claiming they use flouro for the bite tippet for added abrasion resistance and people who use mono also for added abrasion resistance. I was always under the impression that flouro was more abrasion resistant. At least that's what all the flouro companies tell me to get me to buy their expensive spools. So I did a little more googling and came across a Salt Strong video where they set up an abrasion test between Andes mono (20lb), YoZuri flouro (25lb), and Seaguar flouro (20lb). Now i know how everyone feels about the Salt Strong guys but I have to admit, this test seems to be set up pretty well. And in both tests, the Andes mono kicked both flouro's ass. So much so that I don't think you could argue anything about the fairness of the test. I was pretty surprised. Possibly changes my opinion on flouro.

So was anyone else aware of this abrasion claim being possibly false? Does the visibility factor outweigh the lack of abrasion resistance for flouro? I want to hear your thoughts.

Link to the line test:
https://www.saltstrong.com/fishing-tip/fluorocarbon-leader-abrasion-test-vs-mono/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
Leaders are like flies, they change for the situation. Dirty water or want the fly to ride high? Mono. Gin clear water or want the fly a little deeper? Flouro. It’s just that simple. People make wayyyy too much out of it. How many millions of pounds of poon has been landed on mono? They both have their place, but one isn’t better than the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
I would think the only way to test abrasion would be to test the same brand and lb against each other. Mono vs. Flouro of the same brand. Just because the qualities of a brands line can vary. I just use flouro if I need to sink a fly a little more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
The mono is a lot thicker than the fluoro. Hence even though the fluoro is more abrasion resitant per unit (and hence for the same diameters is more resistant) it is less abrasion resistant for a given breaking strain.
 

·
Fly Fishing Shaman
Joined
·
6,429 Posts
I see what you are saying about the Salt Strong test. No doubt, it is very interesting. But there are other stresses that both snook and tarpon, as well as other pelagics put on a leader and that is sharp edge cutting action like a knife. Snook's gill plates can be as sharp as knives and one nick and pull can be the point where a fish cuts off. Same around the mouth plates of tarpon, mackerel teeth, etc. Same thing on barnacles and oysters. A mouth pallet of teeth from a red, snook or tarpon can definitely put wear and tear abrasion on any leader. But the cutting acting of what I just said above is something completely different. That would be another test that they need to try.

I can say that over the years of fishing both, I truly stand behind fluorocarbon and feel I have lost less fish because of it.

But nevertheless, what is the big item that keeps me staying with FC is the fact that is is more translucent and dispersal in the water better than mono, by refracting (or bending) the light out of the leader material and thereby reducing it's visibility. If that is the only reason to stay with FC, then I'm still staying with FC. I'd much rather get the initial strike, due to the leader not being seen by the fish, rather than the fish turning off of it cause they see the leader and makes the whole presentation appear to be unnatural. I made the switch to FC from mason and mono for bite/shock leader and tippet material about 25yrs ago and have never looked back.

As far as "butt section" of the leader goes, I may use any of all 3 materials (FC, Mono or Mason) to build up a butt section (but never mixing them in the butt section), depending on how I want that leader to behave (be it stiff or limp, floating or sinking). Then FC on the tippet and bite leader, at the business end of the entire leader system.

Ted Haas
 

·
Fly Fishing Shaman
Joined
·
6,429 Posts
They both have their place, but one isn’t better than the other.
As fas as "Butt section" of the leader goes, then yes, they all have their place. But for me, not for tippet and bite/shock leaders. That's where I have to disagree. I've just fished way too many years for them (basically over 40yrs worth) to see and feel the difference between it all.

But hey, you guys out there, you do you.... and I'll do me! Be strong with Salt Strong! Use mono for your poon leaders too. Us old guys needs all the help we can get! ;)

Teds-Tarpon-toady-400pix.jpg
 

·
Fly Fishing Shaman
Joined
·
6,429 Posts
I guess if I was just fun fishing for misc fish with the kids, I'd probably have no problems fishing mono as leader material (lord knows I've caught plenty of fish with it).
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top