a little help please

robbie2

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
208
Hello folks,

I'm looking for a new rod for small streams (i.e. little wye tributaries/small alpine streams) and little rivers (i.e. river Coln in gloucester). I plan to use the rod with mostly small dry flies but also, on occasion, with small tungsten nymphs (< size 14) hence the #4 rather than the #3. The fish will be an average size of 1/4 - 1/2 lb (with the rare 1 1/2lb monster!)

I'm trying to decide between a

1) 7'6 # 4

or

2) 8'6 #4

Any thoughts on the relative merits of these two lenghts? Which length would be more versatile?

I would really appreciate any thoughts or suggestions because I want the rod for life and the right decision will make me a happy fisherman!

Thank you :)

Robbie
 

rusty

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2006
Messages
1,515
Location
Warwickshire
Robbie,
If you cannot decide between a 7 ft 6 and an 8 ft 6 why not try an 8 footer!

We cannot really advise apart from you borrow a rod or two and see which suits you and your conditions best.

We all have the pleasure of finding the ideal rod and it often results in quite a collection.

Best of luck.

rusty
 

splash2

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
846
Location
Mainland Glawster
The 8'6" will doubtlessley be more versatile but the question is; will you have room to wield the beast?
 
Last edited:

richardw

Trade Member
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
10,571
Location
On the banks of the Derbyshire Wye
The rod that I usually use on a little Wye tributary near me, is 8ft 9in and uses a #5 line. It is called a Mosquito and was built by Colin Young for Partridge. It is often very helpful having a slightly longer rod than is often recommended for small rivers and brooks, especially for getting round vegetation and also for pushing fish away from me that dive for the roots under my knees.

Out of the two choices you offer us, I'd go for the 8ft 6ins rod.

richard
 

robbie2

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
208
Thats all very interesting advice - thanks for the tips.

Am I right in thinking that an 8'6 #4 is likely to be a little more 'soft' in the tip than a rod made by the same company in a 7'6 #4?

Some of the streams which I fish are really very small where the 7'6 would be very handy (brooks of about the width of a car) others are a bit bigger and I get the feeling that a 8'6 might be useful for reaching over vegetation and little riffles.

Maybe the fact that I could use the 7'6 in both places and maybe the 8'6 in only one place should be the deciding factor.....

Thanks for all the advice! It all helps....

Robbie
 

BOF39

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
71
Location
Swindon
Hi,

I often fish Wye tributaries and smaller rivers and I find an Orvis superfine 7.6 4wt is perfect. In fact like the rod so much I sometimes use it on the main Wye for Grayling, you don't need anything bigger. Whereas an 8ft + rod will be too big for some of the real mountainy streams.

Actually, that's a bit of a fib, I usually use a 6' 6" or 7' split cane rod for the small streams but until I was drawn to the dark side the Orvis was 'the one'. In fact it is the only carbon rod own now but I won't part with it. I fish most of the time on the Avon near Salisbury, which is medium size, and still use the same rods very effectively.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Cheers
 

tigermoth

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
6,244
Location
The Wild West of Dymock
Hi Robbie
Most of my fishing on small rivers and streams in the Monnow & Wye (WUF voucher) catchments - see the photo section in my Monnowlogue Blog for the kinds of waters. I fish a 7ft 3/4wt for the most part and whilst I have an 8ft 6" 5wt for the main stem fishing, the 7ftr works fine there as well. Personally, I am a clumsy oaf, so the longer rod is a bit of an encumberance. I find the small rod fine, I have landed plenty of good fish on it (2lb+) and it is great for all round versatility.
TL
Dave
 
Top