Do you love big bluegill?

What flyline for this older rod?

I've got two of these great old Fenwick flyrods that are in great shape, plus a smaller 6 foot FF60. I want to use them again, but I'm not sure about what weight line to buy. Fly lines are not rated the same as they used to be back in the early '70s. I would like to put a weight forward sinking line on one of them, and a weight forward floating on the other rod. The little 6 footer was rated for a AFTMA 5-6 line, and I will put a floating level line on it. Anybody have any ideas?

Rating:

Currently 0/5 stars.
1
2
3
4
5

View Full Size

Tags:

Comment

You need to be a member of Bluegill - Big Bluegill to add comments!

Join Bluegill - Big Bluegill

Comment by jim cosgrove on November 2, 2013 at 11:46am: i would say a WF 6 on the short rod if it is rated a 5-6.even a 7 if you do a lot of roll casting because of the brush.it will load with less line out and be more manageable.i fish a lot of brushey areas from shore with a 61/2 foot three weight tfo.bought just cause it will rollcast easily.it is graphite but the slower softer version.feels like glass but is much lighter.use light tippets so you can break off easy and don't break your rod

Comment by David, aka, "McScruff" on November 2, 2013 at 7:10am: My first thought its that, on a short rod, you'll have to have a heavier, weight forward line to energize the rod.

Comment by DAVID L EITUTIS on November 1, 2013 at 8:29pm: JUST THE OPPOSITE JEFF, IN MY OPINION , THE SHORTER THE ROD THE HARDER they are to manage so the weight forward makes perfect sense to me. NOw if you were using some Dry flys with a delicate presentation I'd use a double taper , lands softer.......

Comment by Jeff Soto on November 1, 2013 at 8:26pm: 4 1/2 oz. is the weight of the rod , I believe… And I wanted a level line because the rod is so short, I thought it might be a cheaper easier line to use for small brushy streams.

Comment by David, aka, "McScruff" on November 1, 2013 at 7:56pm: AFTMA means, "American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association," and they actually applied a standard to fly tackle that is still used. That is what the second line on the rod indicates. Yes it was new then, but.I'm fairly sure you could use a line that is at the upper end of the limit to energize the slower fiberglass rod. In other words, I'd suggest a 7 or 8, weight forward line.

The 4 1/2 oz is an older designation. Pretty sure they weighed 30 yards of the line and accounted the weight that way. Your rod marks a crossover point in the way we designate such things.

Comment by DAVID L EITUTIS on November 1, 2013 at 7:55pm: Yup lines are still weighted and weighed that way today David. The old method was letter codes such as C , D, H, CDH, ETC. and got so confusing it was changed early 60's ....

Comment by DAVID L EITUTIS on November 1, 2013 at 7:52pm: THE OLD FENGLAS RODS WERE GREAT AND A LITTLE FASTER THAN THE WONDERODS I USE. I'd still try the lines I said. By the way why level line?

Comment by Jeff Soto on November 1, 2013 at 7:48pm: Yeah David, they are fiberglass..

Comment by DAVID L EITUTIS on November 1, 2013 at 7:33pm: HEY JEFF YA GOT SOME GREAT ONES HERE....IF I was going to use level line Jeff I'd put the 6 level on the 6' rod. I"d try weight forward 7 weight on the longer one . To hard to explain it but most of these rods from the late 60's early 70's were all overrated for lines, in my opinion anyway. You can always go up a weight if ya like and that will slow em down considerably . I presume these are glass rods ? If so I'd do as I said. If they are graphite then I'd do the same but maybe go up one weight on the shorter one.........