2 weights

Overmiwadrers

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
681
Location
Yorkshire
So I am interested how many of you fish with sub 3wts and what do you use them for . I don’t use 1wts but have several 2wts and I confess that for many years I considered anything lighter than a three weight a bit impractical but now I have a old hardy 7ft 2wt , a sage circa 279 . Both lovely dry fly rods and I have a 9ft and 10ft for winter grayling. How many use them ?

O M W
 

jaybeegee

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
1,986
Location
Yorkshire
I have a nice little Hardy six footer in a 2wt which I use on the upper Nidd on a stretch where the river is a beck in a tree tunnel. Bought from a fellow Tyke and forum member it has become one of my favourite rods.
B
 

GraylingFin

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2021
Messages
83
Location
Wales
I've got a Scierra Brook 7ft 2wt that I really like to fish dries in tight places under the canopy of trees.
It hasn't seen the light this season yet as there's little going on the surface.
 

Whinging pom

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
477
Location
Northants
Not sure how much info you want.
I fish a small brook with tight trees and open reaches of reedy lined water in open farm land. The fish caught this year in my records are between 16cm and 48cm with the majority around the 30 cm mark. That’s a typical season. Casting is rod length to 25 ‘/30’
I used to fish with a 5wt ( reddington) didn’t like the presentation and it only loaded on longer casts
I was lent a winston IM6 6’ 2wt that converted me to lighter wieghts

I bought a TFO lefty Krey 6’ 2wt that was good for the 60 quid it cost , if not a little too stiff and probably under cooked on a 2wt line. Another rod loan converted me to buying blanks of a sage TXL 0 wt which was brilliant and adaptable and dealt with wind great and never felt under powered. At 7 ‘10” it did over the years start to feel over long though. I tried an Orvis 6’ 2wt trout bum which had a divine action and on the back of that sold the Sage and bought some Helios 2 blanks which I’ve been using this year until we parted company.

It’s not ideal for all of the water system ( our brook)but great for the bits I enjoy fishing. When it did let me down it would be the length rather than the weight . Like the very odd long cast , over you waist in stream and with only 6’ of medium action rod to rely on it was hard to break the surface tension and set a hook.
My end gear is a 4’ silk furled leader 3- 5’ of 6x seagur grand max and occasionally an extra 18” of 7x if I want to fish finer.
My next rod when it arrives is another 6’ 2wt.
hope that paints a picture .
 
Last edited:

ejw

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
694
Location
Helsby, Cheshire
3wt has been my limit so far, but based on this thread, I may need to review. Not that I need another rod and reel set up, but !!!!!
 

wobbly face

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
22,420
Location
Not So Greater Manchester.
I have 2, Hardy Flyweight and Greys Streamflex MK2, both 6ft. The Hardy has a more soft, through action and a 2 piece rod. The Greys has a faster action and ideal backpack and bush whacking rod being a 4 piece.
 

Overmiwadrers

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
681
Location
Yorkshire
I am just being nosey but it’s interesting when I started fly fishing 50 years ago I had a seven weight and used it for everything five weights were thought of as light 20 years ago I mainly used 5 weight , these days my most used rods are three weights . I wonder what it will be like in 20 years time

O M W
 

Whinging pom

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
477
Location
Northants
Maybe it’s a progression of technology from the heavier old cane to early glass, then the first carbons being gradual steps up to newer technology and taper design , and the responding lines and tapers. When I started being aware of fly fishing Trout and Salmon were writing up Brian Clarke and Richard Walker . The rod adverts were generally about lighter rods in weight but able to handle heavier lines, “still casting the distance of tournament casters “ ( Geoffrey bucknall rods ). The focus and latest fashion was on reservoirs and distance.
Somewhere a long the way the desire to return to rivers and little streams and lighter presentation and finesse has grown as a competing focus, and the technology and tapers has facilitated this.
Rods got shorter and lighter. It may have gone a bit too far with 00 and 000wt, I never tried, they didn’t seem to stick around . It seems 2 is now and expectable norm for light whereas 5 seemed to be the epitome of light fishing .
There was of course river rods too but a typical advert from 1975 for a 8’ river rod says “the two piece miracle weighs a little over two ounces yet handles a number 6 with ease! The focus was heavier lines were desirable.
 
Last edited:

Whinging pom

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
477
Location
Northants
34E09C27-16CC-48D3-8377-D1901F0788A7.jpeg
My reference material!!
 

Overmiwadrers

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
681
Location
Yorkshire
I am on the same thought train. Truth is that trying to build a 2 wt with the carbon of 20 or 30 years ago would have been interesting I guess . I suppose where I am with it is that a few of the rivers I fish locally have BT to 1 1/2 and Grayling to about 2 and the two weights handle them well and give lovely close range presentation. I know a 3wt would as well but it just seems so nice fishing with so little weight. Have to say there are some minging two weights out there as well

O M W
 

Whinging pom

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
Messages
477
Location
Northants
My biggest this year was around 3lb ( never too sure with the scales in the net) the rod power wasn’t an issue the 6’ was what could have let me down, another two feet to help lever it away from some reed beds and willow clumps would have helped, and it left me feeling, when the fish was in the net, that I’d cheekily got away with that one!
Not relevant for our water but I’d guess a 9’2wt for nymph rod would be lovely.
I did try doing it with the TXL 0wt but anything over a standard gold head became a bit of a lottery in terms of accuracy and presentation. Generally a frustrating experience.
 

Overmiwadrers

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
681
Location
Yorkshire
My biggest this year was around 3lb ( never too sure with the scales in the net) the rod power wasn’t an issue the 6’ was what could have let me down, another two feet to help lever it away from some reed beds and willow clumps would have helped, and it left me feeling, when the fish was in the net, that I’d cheekily got away with that one!
Not relevant for our water but I’d guess a 9’2wt for nymph rod would be lovely.
I did try doing it with the TXL 0wt but anything over a standard gold head became a bit of a lottery in terms of accuracy and presentation. Generally a frustrating experience.
Pom , I have the Hanak 9ft / 9ft 6 inch 2wt. At 9ft its a great dries rod and with the extra 6 inch insert lovely for nymphing. its a strange action , quite fast but with a very soft tip.

O M W
 

Vintage Badger

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 16, 2021
Messages
1,095
Location
Cheshire
Maybe it’s a progression of technology from the heavier old cane to early glass, then the first carbons being gradual steps up to newer technology and taper design , and the responding lines and tapers. When I started being aware of fly fishing Trout and Salmon were writing up Brian Clarke and Richard Walker . The rod adverts were generally about lighter rods in weight but able to handle heavier lines, “still casting the distance of tournament casters “ ( Geoffrey bucknall rods ). The focus and latest fashion was on reservoirs and distance.
Somewhere a long the way the desire to return to rivers and little streams and lighter presentation and finesse has grown as a competing focus, and the technology and tapers has facilitated this.
Rods got shorter and lighter. It may have gone a bit too far with 00 and 000wt, I never tried, they didn’t seem to stick around . It seems 2 is now and expectable norm for light whereas 5 seemed to be the epitome of light fishing .
There was of course river rods too but a typical advert from 1975 for a 8’ river rod says “the two piece miracle weighs a little over two ounces yet handles a number 6 with ease! The focus was heavier lines were desirable.
I wonder how much of this is down to fashion and marketing? The trend for lighter lined rods is noticeable these days; as you point out, at one time a 9' #7/8 was the usual 'all rounder' type rod, now that's become a #5 weight. Being sceptical, influencing trends could be a great way to sell an otherwise happy angler a new rod, line and reel that they probably don't really need!

I sometimes have a chuckle when I look at the sport these days; since when did spending £300+ on a pair of breathable chest waders and £150+ on the accompanying boots become commonplace when the angler fishes a stillwater with no wading or a small brook where thigh waders would be ample?

Oh, and don't forget the matching baseball cap and the 'vest' (they're not called waistcoats these days, as it's not trendy or American enough), which make the wearer look like they belong in a SWAT team. Then there's the wooden-framed scoop net, which has to be worn on the angler's back on a magnetic tether to get the 'look' right, which subsequently requires contortions and much stretching to land a fish in most circumstances on small British streams.

Yes, I may chuckle, but how many fly fishers fall for the marketing as they want to look the part and wear the correct 'uniform'? Does it catch them more fish or make them any happier? Well, it certainly relieves them of more money, so perhaps there's some retail therapy value there? Does using a #3 weight rod really make such a noticeable difference as opposed to fishing a #4 weight rod? And more to the point, is it really a #3 weight rod, or just labelled as such with a 'mislabelled' line to match? Is what you are about to buy into really the cutting edge of fishing technology, or more akin to the Emperor's new clothes?
 

bbamboo

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
2,466
Location
County Durham
When I first started out on rivers the standard rod used was a 6 wt on the Tees.
After it became a 5 wt which stuck for 30 yrs or more. I would guess the new norm is a 4 or maybe a 3 with some.
 

ROVER

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
1,772
Location
hartlepool
When I first started out on rivers the standard rod used was a 6 wt on the Tees.
After it became a 5 wt which stuck for 30 yrs or more. I would guess the new norm is a 4 or maybe a 3 with some.
I use a 9ft 2wt now when theres no wind on the tees
 

esk

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
893
Location
East Lothian
I own a 2wt Orvis Superfine 6'6" and a 1wt Thomas and Thomas 8'.

They saw a lot of action on my local river until it became horribly polluted. Haven't used them for a while.
 

Overmiwadrers

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
681
Location
Yorkshire
I wonder how much of this is down to fashion and marketing? The trend for lighter lined rods is noticeable these days; as you point out, at one time a 9' #7/8 was the usual 'all rounder' type rod, now that's become a #5 weight. Being sceptical, influencing trends could be a great way to sell an otherwise happy angler a new rod, line and reel that they probably don't really need!

I sometimes have a chuckle when I look at the sport these days; since when did spending £300+ on a pair of breathable chest waders and £150+ on the accompanying boots become commonplace when the angler fishes a stillwater with no wading or a small brook where thigh waders would be ample?

Oh, and don't forget the matching baseball cap and the 'vest' (they're not called waistcoats these days, as it's not trendy or American enough), which make the wearer look like they belong in a SWAT team. Then there's the wooden-framed scoop net, which has to be worn on the angler's back on a magnetic tether to get the 'look' right, which subsequently requires contortions and much stretching to land a fish in most circumstances on small British streams.

Yes, I may chuckle, but how many fly fishers fall for the marketing as they want to look the part and wear the correct 'uniform'? Does it catch them more fish or make them any happier? Well, it certainly relieves them of more money, so perhaps there's some retail therapy value there? Does using a #3 weight rod really make such a noticeable difference as opposed to fishing a #4 weight rod? And more to the point, is it really a #3 weight rod, or just labelled as such with a 'mislabelled' line to match? Is what you are about to buy into really the cutting edge of fishing technology, or more akin to the Emperor's new clothes?
There is something in what you say , but rods, reels and lines are far more pleasurable to use these days . And having started out with rubber thigh and chest waders I can tell you that in terms of comfort and enjoyment give me breathables and wading boots any day. As for waistcoats well I do have one and have some more technical packs as well. But if you knew and met me you would see that I have no interest getting the look right at all. I am a 60 plus Yorkshireman with a very bad attitude To me its all about comfort and functionality . You have permission to bat me one if you see me in a baseball cap. If you look in this months FFFT I am in there playing a fish my wife said thank god no one we know will see or recognise you...

O M W
 
Top