|
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | Just wondering how many of you guys throw double #13's blades as regular of your daily lure selection. I mean actually throw them for a decent amount of time, more than just a few casts then switch them up. I've been throwing dbl #10's since they first really hit the market but this is my first year really throwing #13's as a serious part of my bait selection, only problem is I've caught a total of one fish on them and had one follow. Neither fish was anything to get excited about either. How do you guys make out with them? When do you find them more productive over say a double #10 spinner? Thanks Tim |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1887
Location: syracuse indiana | there are alot more days they outproduce the 10's and they are much easier for clients to throw them too.. they do not have as much drag on the arms for newbies...bill
well actually to answer your question.. they do not have as much thump as the 10's do.. thats for sure.. but they are a bigger profile. and most fish see that as a bigger meal.. we have caught small to bigger fish on them.. but as i was saying they do pull easier. becouse the 13 blade lays more closer to the shaft when the 10 blade pulsates outward away from the shaft.. which is where you get the thumping from.. dont get me wrong they do thump. but not as much as the 10.. but both have their place and time |
|
| |
|
| dunno what 13's you're using, nut, that spin closer to the shaft and pull easier, they must be thicker than your 10s. blade thickness is the only cause of what you're describing, and i haven't seen any thicker 13s. they'd weigh a ton.
13's do pull proportionally harder than 10s, for them to pull easier and not thump as much, logically and scientifically and from what you can see in the water, doesn't make sense, no offense intended.
i use 13s more than 10s but interchange them quite a bit too depending on how hard i feel like working. not too many situations i wouldn't throw both, and 13s will get the nod as the water cools. 13s worked for us on the last day of last season and first day of this season. keep throwing them and you'll become a believer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 176
Location: Tomahawk, WI | 13's definately pull harder than 10's Mayhem tacke wise. I have a 13 cowgirl that i dont use much, and was wondering the same thing as roughneck, do they catch fish like the 10's? they just seem so huge. Im going to start throwing them no that the water is cooling. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 97
Location: Pickering, ON | The 13s are great for trolling.
In terms of ease of use, I do find that the Tacklebooty double 13s come in easier than DCG 10s. I do believe that is due to blade thickness, but I'd have to look to be sure.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | My older model double #13s Booty Tails had the thicker 040 blades on them so they do not pull as hard. My new tails for 2010 use 032 thick blades (both the double #10 and #13s) and they do pull harder but they flare out more and give off more vibration too. They also start up immediatly upon hitting the water vs heavier blades. Other nice thing about 032 and thicker blades is they will not warp like the 024 blades will. In all honesty though, you really have to fish a bucktail hard to warp the blades.
JMO
James
PS-I have a lot of customers who swear by the double #13s at night vs the double #10 tails.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1887
Location: syracuse indiana | yes guys i am using jame's 13's. i also have some super girls 13's too. but i tend to use his stuff more.. sorry i forgot to clarify that in my first post |
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
| I have one 13 it's a dcg super model, it's tail is long that when I go to throw it, it bends alot and absorbs alot of the throw so I can't seem to throw it as far as dcg 10's. I think I use it more for slow rollin and trolling! |
|
| |
|
| LLS - pause on your backcast to straighten it out - i also add 1/4 to 1/2 of weight to almost all my bucktails 10s or 13s and that'll make a HUGE different in casting while not requiring much more work to keep it up in the water if you want to. |
|
| |
|
| There's no doubt all 13 blades thick or thin, more cupped or less, catch fish. Mayhem's Supermodel blades although larger, are more cupped than normal .025 tens. Being more cupped makes them spin closer to the shaft which in turn creates less drag and makes them pull through the water easier than you would think. They seem to pull about the same as tens. I think this was intentional on Mayhem's part and not a bad idea as many muskie fisherman would rather not "feal the burn" that isn't always necessary.
If your looking for some painful blades to real in try Figure 8's 13s...these things hurt! They're made of .032 metal which is halfway in between the normal .025 and .040. This way they still flare out pretty far and last alot longer than the thinner 13s.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | I'm kind of surprised I didn't get more "I kill'em on #13s" replies. For the amount I hear about them I was really expecting to hear more positive comments on them than what was posted here. Did I miss some people or are there just not that many fish caught on them? I've fished them twice more since I made the original post and had one more follow on them but no takers. I too find James #13's to not pull as hard as some others out there.
Thanks
Tim
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| I would like to see a third hook added to the supermodels, I witnessed three fish so far eat the bait inbetween the hooks and upon hookset they shake right off. Another change that should be made is going to #8 clevises (the biggest they make) on 13's as the pull of these blades will widen out the standard clevise's in a hurry, then you get the whole bait spinning on the way in. Other then those two downfalls, fish seem to like'em. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | I use them, but not for burning. I like to slow roll them, either day or night. I break them out when the 10's ran fast aren't working. I've put some good fish in the boat on them, but I'm not convinced that they wouldn'tve come on 10's or any other bait as they've all (in my mind) been attributable to moon or weather. I don't think 12's or 13's are propotionately better than 10's, in that I've seen friggin size 20 blades for sale; implying "bigger is better." I don't think so. I think there's a point of dimminishing returns. I think 13's are that point. Tens are peak, 13s are good, anything after that is too big. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 41
| esoxfly - 9/6/2010 10:06 PM
I use them, but not for burning. I like to slow roll them, either day or night. I break them out when the 10's ran fast aren't working. I've put some good fish in the boat on them, but I'm not convinced that they wouldn'tve come on 10's or any other bait as they've all (in my mind) been attributable to moon or weather. I don't think 12's or 13's are propotionately better than 10's, in that I've seen friggin size 20 blades for sale; implying "bigger is better." I don't think so. I think there's a point of dimminishing returns. I think 13's are that point. Tens are peak, 13s are good, anything after that is too big.
Seriously???? I believe we are fortunate to get big fish to even look @ these offerings (being so small). They can take down a 30" pike/walleye and time they want. Make them bigger and need much better equipment. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | greyranger - 9/8/2010 10:43 PM
esoxfly - 9/6/2010 10:06 PM
I use them, but not for burning. I like to slow roll them, either day or night. I break them out when the 10's ran fast aren't working. I've put some good fish in the boat on them, but I'm not convinced that they wouldn'tve come on 10's or any other bait as they've all (in my mind) been attributable to moon or weather. I don't think 12's or 13's are propotionately better than 10's, in that I've seen friggin size 20 blades for sale; implying "bigger is better." I don't think so. I think there's a point of dimminishing returns. I think 13's are that point. Tens are peak, 13s are good, anything after that is too big.
Seriously???? I believe we are fortunate to get big fish to even look @ these offerings (being so small ). They can take down a 30" pike/walleye and time they want. Make them bigger and need much better equipment.
Am I serious? Very much so. To think that a bigger blade automatically equals bigger fish is incorrect in my opinion, otherwise we'd be handlining custom size 30 blades and catching 50's all the time. I'm sure you could get fish to hit the size 20's I see for sale but like I said, it's a point of diminishing returns; it's too much work for what it's worth. Heck, there's people that think 10's are too much to be worth it and don't cast them. By your logic the big fish never hit the small Mepps, Rabid Squirrels, or Showgirls, and we all know those smaller baits catch big fish.
Yes, they can take down a 30" pike, but it doesn't mean they don't eat 6" perch or want "small" (if you want to call 12/13s small) offerings when the time is right. If you wanna cast monster blades, help yourself. I'm good setting my upper limit at 12's. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Big baits equal big fish more often, been proven over and over again. A big fish would rather have one big meal then 6 small meals. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 41
| Never would be the one to say "small" lures don't catch big fish. Seen it to many times. Heck the kid off the dock using a mister twister is the one who seems to catch a big musky. Just stating that big baits usually will get you bigger fish on a more consistant basis. I have some guys who won't even begin to think about burning a Showgirl because its too much work. Many days that will produce when nothing else does. Back to the big bait theory - how many of us will usually "downsize" on a major coldfront? Just about every one of us. My biggest Wisconsin fish came on a mid July night in about 2 foot waves trolling a 12" crankbait. Mother of all cold fronts to say the least - thought it was going to snow. When I asked the guide why this was our strategy - his reponse was - what size fish are we looking for? We trolled all night in that and our smallest lure was 12".
Just another way of thinking outside of our boxes. No right or wrong way here. Just another side to make us think. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | I agree with both of you. I'm a big bait guy. But to say bigger "blades" equal bigger fish is false in my mind; likewise saying that big fish won't look at these "smaller" baits isn't true in my mind. |
|
| |
|
| Mr Musky - 9/9/2010 10:40 PM
Big baits equal big fish more often, been proven over and over again. A big fish would rather have one big meal then 6 small meals.
proven,post a link of that ! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 344
Location: Musky Country | I agree with mr musky on this one.
Big fish on mag dawgs 47 out of all the years of throwning them.
Big fish on pounders 51.5,54 this year alone and two over fifty last year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | Not sure about the whole big bait big fish theory as I've caught my top two fish which were right at 55" on opposite ends of the scale in bait size. As far as the double #13's go I do believe they actually catch fish now. I was out Saturday morning just after sun up and saw some Shad jumping on the backside of a sand bar up in 3ft of water. I also saw a 'Ski working the surface like an Orca chasing seals up on the beach. I tossed my flamer coloured BootyTail up past the area I saw the fish and about 6 cranks in BAM!!! My biggest fish of the year.
Good Fishin'
Tim
Attachments
----------------
 IMG00137s.jpg (89KB - 150 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | Tim,
I think that is the biggest fish on one of my Tackle Ind double #13 Booty Tails I have seen this year! Nice one!
James
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 999
| Nice job! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3240
Location: Racine, Wi | Nice fish Tim. Now to play devil's advocate. Do you think you could have thrown any bait up there at that fish (say any bucktail for instance) since it was up and actively feeding? It appears as though that fish was "active" and was obviously feeding, so would a mepps done the same thing?
It could have been the 13s, or maybe just the mood of the fish. Just curious to what you all think. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4053
Location: Land of the Musky | Not to answer Tim's Q but I think a cool way to find Joel's answer would be to troll a double #10, #13 and a Mepps Muksy Killer #5 around at night and see which ones get the most hits. Woudl be interesting to see what vibration from blades is most responsible. They all work but what makes a Musky "tingle" when they feel a bucktail go by??? |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | until one of us can communicate w/ a musky I doubt we will know what they think or want at any given time ...imo super models like the 13s will get hits over 10s - at times...just like 8s will get hits / action over 13s at other times... couple things I have learned over the yrs is never say never and let the fish tell you what they want, not someone on an internet board who may or may not catch big fish...(heck don't even listen to me ;p) I don't throw anything bigger than the super models but it's more out of sheer comfort than thinking I will or won't catch bigger fish....big lures do catch big fish.. I would say to EsoxFly that I will have to respecfully disagree with your assertion that there is a law of diminishing returns w/ regards to big baits...at times the biggest bait is the one that gets hit...and the reverse is true...at times anything goes.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | tuffy1 - 9/13/2010 10:22 AM
Nice fish Tim. Now to play devil's advocate. Do you think you could have thrown any bait up there at that fish (say any bucktail for instance) since it was up and actively feeding? It appears as though that fish was "active" and was obviously feeding, so would a mepps done the same thing?
It could have been the 13s, or maybe just the mood of the fish. Just curious to what you all think.
Thats hard to say. What I will say though is when I'm guiding or even just fishing with friends I fish out of the back of my boat. thats why I have a tiller steer. I like to give whom ever I am with first crack at fresh water. Saturday I had two people with me and both had already cast baits (one dbl #10 and one 2oz spinnerbait with a #8 and #5 blades) right across the area the fish was active in. The fish ate my #13. Chance or did it want something bigger....I dont know. I do like bigger baits though which why I originally posted this thread asking about #13's.
As for the bigger baits equals bigger fish.........I have to get my 2cents in on this. I will say I dont think you have to throw or run big baits to catch big fish. Like posted above my two biggest fish both right at 55" came on opposite ends of the bait scale. One on a 6 1/2" Firetiger Long A Bomber and the other on a Walleye 14" deepdiver that I make. Both in the fall. That shows you can catch big fish on either. Now on the other hand........I've been guiding on Lake St.Clair and the Detroit River since 1984. For the first 20yrs all I did was mainly troll the lake. Smaller baits (6-7") and open water was the ticket. We would turn some insane numbers of fish. 15+ fish days were common and my best year I boated over 500 fish. I had 10 fish over 50" that year. In other years with lower numbers it still worked out about the same 1in 50 fish was 50"+ and my average fish being in 38-40" range. The last 5 yrs I've switched from trolling little baits on the Lake to casting larger baits (dbl #10's, magdawgs,etc) My year numbers are down because I don't have the time to fish as much and my trip average numbers are down as well. My records over the last few years though show that since I started throwing bigger baits while casting my "big fish ratio" is closer to 1 in 38 and my average size fish is now 40-44". I'm am fishing a different location being a river vs the lake but it is still the same general body of water. I under stand my catch numbers being down because of casting with one rod per angler vs two on the lake so my rods hours are cut in half. My catch numbers are less than half so there is an add factor in there.......location or bait size maybe? according to our MNR fish density on a per acre basis is quite close so that leaves bait size. So here's my take on it. Big baits will catch you less fish which makes sense. They wont only catch you big fish as I've had 20" fish eat 12" baits. From what I've seen though is the AVERAGE size of your fish will increase with bigger baits and for me that meant more big fish proportionally to my total numbers. I guess its up to one own though on how when when to use big baits.......I just love them though which is partially why I muskie fish. I think it very cool tossing a 16" oz 20" long pc of plastic threw the air know that there's a fish out there hungry enough to it.
Sorry about the babbling but I keep good records and this a topic that I find very interesting
Good Fishin'
Tim
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | BNelson - 9/13/2010 5:54 PM
I would say to EsoxFly that I will have to respecfully disagree with your assertion that there is a law of diminishing returns w/ regards to big baits...at times the biggest bait is the one that gets hit...and the reverse is true...at times anything goes.
Read my posts again....I'm not talking about "baits." I said "blades," which is what this thread is about. I even said above that I'm all about big baits; I throw alot bigger than most guys do here on LSC. I'm speaking blades. I'll say it again for all to see...I love big "BAITS" but I think the size 20 blades (both single and double) I've seen for sale are too big to be proportionately successful. The "body" of the bait is the same or similar to a 12/13 bait, but the "BLADE(S)" are massive and I don't think pulling 20's will directly equate to bigger fish, otherwise I'd be doing it.
As far as 12's vs 10's, again, I don't think 12's are "better" but that they have their place....night, slow rolling, fall....at least these are the times I pull them out and have done well on them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Roughneck1860 - 9/13/2010 7:51 PM
So here's my take on it. Big baits will catch you less fish which makes sense. They wont only catch you big fish as I've had 20" fish eat 12" baits. From what I've seen though is the AVERAGE size of your fish will increase with bigger baits and for me that meant more big fish proportionally to my total numbers. I guess its up to one own though on how when when to use big baits.......I just love them though which is partially why I muskie fish. I think it very cool tossing a 16" oz 20" long pc of plastic threw the air know that there's a fish out there hungry enough to it.
Agree entirely. While I don't have anywhere near the number of seasons on the lake as Tim has, nor have I kept as detailed records, I absolutely agree. I'll say it again, I like to throw big baits, and I would say that on "average" I see larger fish. My measly two and a half seasons on LSC my smallest fish on conventional gear is 38." While my girlfriend, obviously in the same boat as me, throwing little bucktails and crankbaits catches a good number of 20"-30" fish. So yeah, I'm all about the big baits! |
|
| |
|
Location: Northern Wisconsin | smallest fish = 38"!! wow thats insane |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | It's not me....it's the lake. And the fact that I only own a handful of 8" Jakes, no 6" Jakes and too many 10" Jakes to count....same goes for the blades and plastics. Don't own more than a couple reg dawgs, but a boat load of mags and pounders. By and large, I believe in big baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 295
Location: Southern Ontario, Detroit River and Lake StClair | Well after catching the last fish that I posted a picture of earlier in the this thread I've quite a bit more confidence in my large blades. Yesterday morning while out with my boys I was tossing a Tackle Industries BootyTail dbl #13 Silver Perch. We were up on top a 7-8ft flat off a step drop into 25ft of water. The wind was blowing off the main lake onto this flat and had blown a lot of shad that the Muskie are feeding on right now up on to it. We had fish this oine area that had a few rock pile on it for about an hour with my boys throwing dbl #8, dbl #10 spinners along with standard weighted BullDawgs. About 10:15 a.m. (moonrise was 10:01) I felt a slight tick and wasn't sure if I had tapped the top of the rocks or not so I set the hook. It tugged back so I set the hook twice more. After a few good runs and two chase around the boat drills my oldest boy slipped the net under this beauty. 52 3/4"x24" Why almost 3" shy of my all time PB it tops my list of fish while casting. It also adds again to my confidence level of big blades. I've heard alot of guy stop throwing blades when the water dips below 60 degrees which had me questioning thing as our temps were in the 56-57 degree range. I was slow rolling the bait just along bottom instead of a standard just below the surface retrieve but the results go to show they also work in colder water. I'll be throwing them until our season closes Dec 15th which usually leaves us with water temps in the mid to upper 30 degree range. Have to see how thing play out as the fall progresses. Here's a pic.
Good Fishin'
Tim
Attachments
----------------
IMG00177s.jpg (121KB - 171 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| Love my double #13 Booty Tails. They have produced some very large fish for me in 2010. For $18 a piece you can not go wrong. They pull a little more than a double #10 but not that much more and IMO will boat you more fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Nice fish Tim! Love the blades all year long man! |
|
| |
|
| #*^@ Tim those are some nice fish! You just sold me on the 12's and 13's. I just started throwing 10's on a regular basis this year. I don't own any 12's or 13's but I will be getting some. |
|
| |
