|
|
| The SI attracts loads of Fish.
The hook up rate is crap.
A Non brainer fix would be to put the hooks further apart.
Musky Innovations must be well aware of this but have not modified the Lure to improve the situation.
Why?.
A sensible reply from M.I. would be much appreciated!
Cheers Rob T. |
|
| |
|
| why haven't 'you' modified the bait to improve the situation?
why would 'they' do it if you keep buying them as-is? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 283
| I've wondered the same thing. I lost a 50" bc of it. The reg invader's back hook is extended back out of the way. |
|
| |
|
| I have been putting the rear hook attached to the rubber tail. Some of the fish hit tail first and swallowed it.. I haven't lost to many fish on it. Scars (nicknamed) has seen better days. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 388
| This modification was in a MHM article a few years ago. Use light fishing wire like 0.029" tooth proof American Fishing Wire. Works great, not sure why Musky Innovations hasn't caught on. Also solves the problem of the two hooks tangling together. I opt to not use a split ring on the back hook to minimize weight because you can affect balance and attitude of the lure when you pause between twitches. As a general rule you want a crank/twitch bait to be tail buoyant, not tail heavy - this helps it to back out of weeds when ripping. I used a 3/0 3557 Mustad on this lure which is the stock hook. A 2/0 may work better for reasons described above.
(IMG00147-20110223-1753.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 IMG00147-20110223-1753.jpg (76KB - 317 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 717
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Rob T - 2/23/2011 6:16 PM
The SI attracts loads of Fish.
The hook up rate is crap.
A Non brainer fix would be to put the hooks further apart.
Musky Innovations must be well aware of this but have not modified the Lure to improve the situation.
Why?.
A sensible reply from M.I. would be much appreciated!
Cheers Rob T.
Yes, the Invader attracts loads of fish. I disagree with the next statement, as I have never, EVER lost a fish on a Shallow Invader. But like it was said, sticking the rear hook into the tail improves the lure. But I would love to see them do it like the Swimmin' Joes, just so you don't damage the tail on every fish. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Yes Rob, it is a terrible hooking bait unless you modify it. The problem (this is not exclusive to this bait) is the short shank front hook and the relationship to the lip. The scenario is generally that the fish eats the head and the lip acts like a weed guard (or in this cast "fish guard") and doesn't allow the front hook to grab. A 6/0 3551 on the front and the rear 3/0 moved back on a heavy wire (smiliar to above) will get it done for those that nip at the back.
If you're targeting big fish only a single 7/0 3551, on the front hook hanger, really works well but you may miss those little ones that nip the tail. |
|
| |
|
| I'll post a pic of my mod. when I get a chance. The answer from Muskie Innovations has always been simple: COST. It's far more cost effective for you to do it than to pay someone else. That may not be a popular answer but the truth is they haven't come up with a simple, cost-effective solution without changing the basic characteristics of the bait. Most of us die-hard shallow invader fans would rather modify than risk "retooling" an already fantastic bait. My mod is similar to the one shown but I use .051 bucktail wire and add shrink tube to hold the hook up right.
P.S. use search function, there was a recent thread about Shallow Invaders that included further discussion.
Attachments
----------------
Ben's bait mod.jpg (51KB - 298 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 348
| put one of the hooks in the bottom tail havent failed me yet |
|
| |
