Muskie Discussion Forums

Forums | Calendars | Albums | Quotes | Language | Blogs Search | Statistics | User Listing
You are logged in as a guest. ( logon | register )
Moderators: Slamr

View previous thread :: View next thread
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page]

Muskie Fishing -> Lures,Tackle, and Equipment -> Hardmono vs Fluorocarbon trace.
 
Message Subject: Hardmono vs Fluorocarbon trace.
Zinox
Posted 9/19/2012 4:50 AM (#585681)
Subject: Hardmono vs Fluorocarbon trace.




Posts: 1100


Can anyone in here explain me the difference?

Tried to google it several times now but cant find a good ansver, i'm currently using 1mm hardmono, and so far it worked perfect.

Tight lines from Denmark.
P2M
Posted 9/19/2012 6:25 AM (#585685 - in reply to #585681)
Subject: RE: Hardmono vs Fluorocarbon trace.


hard (stiffer) mono is no different then soft (supple) mono as both are made of nylon. diameter is usually the difference. example 100# hard mono has a thicker diameter then 100# soft mono though this isn't always true. mono also floats.

fluorocarbon is made of fluoropolyer/polyvinlidene witch is totally material then what mono (nylon) is made of. fluorocarbon usually sinks.

hope this helps.
Zinox
Posted 9/20/2012 6:27 AM (#585922 - in reply to #585685)
Subject: RE: Hardmono vs Fluorocarbon trace.




Posts: 1100


Oki thanks, but regarding using it as a trace, the fluorocarbon is much more resistent to muskie teeth ?
Guest
Posted 9/20/2012 7:45 AM (#585933 - in reply to #585922)
Subject: RE: Hardmono vs Fluorocarbon trace.


Zinox - 9/20/2012 6:27 AM

Oki thanks, but regarding using it as a trace, the fluorocarbon is much more resistent to muskie teeth ?


yes fluorocarbon is a lot more resistance to teeth then mono. fluorocarbon well last a lot longer them mono also. i have used mono for leaders/trace in the past but only for top water/WTD bait but was using 250# + and they just didn't last long. no break offs but the leaders got nicks and wore out much faster then fluorocarbon.
Zinox
Posted 9/20/2012 8:28 AM (#585942 - in reply to #585933)
Subject: RE: Hardmono vs Fluorocarbon trace.




Posts: 1100


Oki thanks, gues ill get some fluorocarbon next time
MuskieSwede
Posted 9/20/2012 2:33 PM (#586028 - in reply to #585681)
Subject: Re: Hardmono vs Fluorocarbon trace.




Posts: 245


Zinox, don't waste your money on expensive FC, it's not worth it.
I've been using mono leaders (154lb 1,17mm) for a year now and have had 0 problems, never even HAD to change a leader.
Most cheap FC is actually mono with a FC coating as well so you really have to spend alot of money to get the real FC.
Also i tested and my mono and it was MORE abrasion resistant than FC (real 100% FC) in the same diameter. You don't need more abrasion resistance than mono anyway.
Mono is also softer which is a nice bonus.

Skitfiske, som vi säger i Sverige!
Guest
Posted 9/28/2012 7:00 AM (#587603 - in reply to #586028)
Subject: Re: Hardmono vs Fluorocarbon trace.


MuskieSwede - 9/20/2012 2:33 PM

Zinox, don't waste your money on expensive FC, it's not worth it.
I've been using mono leaders (154lb 1,17mm) for a year now and have had 0 problems, never even HAD to change a leader.
Most cheap FC is actually mono with a FC coating as well so you really have to spend alot of money to get the real FC.
Also i tested and my mono and it was MORE abrasion resistant than FC (real 100% FC) in the same diameter. You don't need more abrasion resistance than mono anyway.
Mono is also softer which is a nice bonus.

Skitfiske, som vi säger i Sverige!


you need to do some reading.

totalfisherman.com
click on blog articles then in search box type 8 reason to use fluorocarbon line and leader

alamoflyfishers.org
click tutorials then click mono or fluorocarbon
Jump to page : 1
Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page]
Jump to forum :
Search this forum
Printer friendly version
E-mail a link to this thread

(Delete all cookies set by this site)