Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fly-Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-14-2018, 08:01 PM
gvetsch gvetsch is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 15
Default Cortland 333

Cortland 333 Classic - floating wf5.
Is this a decent fly line for a lower priced line.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-14-2018, 09:03 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvetsch View Post
Cortland 333 Classic - floating wf5.
Is this a decent fly line for a lower priced line.
Yes. The first decent fly line I bought. Used them for many years till the 444 came along.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-14-2018, 09:45 PM
gvetsch gvetsch is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 15
Default

Thanks for the info. I haven't seen a lot of Cortland product around. Any info on where to find 333 or 444.

Greg
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-15-2018, 12:12 AM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default

I have been fishing with the 444 for over 30 years now and the 444 is still my go to floating line from #2-6 weights. I do prefer a wf over the the dt. Cortland got it right when they developed the 444 and they have been smart enough to stick with a good thing.

I would check out the fishin' hole for Cortland lines
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-15-2018, 05:33 AM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 2,516
Default

The older offerings like 333 and 444 proven performers. I used the 444 for years and in all honesty it is better than most of the latest fad stuff. I picked up a 444 for a floating line on my 8 wt Xi2 thinking I didn't use it much and would save money. I forgot how nicely it casts and wouldn't trade it straight up for a "better" line as it suits this rod perfectly.

Their new stuff gets excellent reviews as well. The Trout Boss is apparently a weight forward line that is well liked for fast and very fast action rods. The Omni-verse has a long rear taper and gets equally good reviews. I will be trying the Omni-verse next time I need a fly line for my dry fly rod.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-15-2018, 09:12 AM
gvetsch gvetsch is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 15
Default

Thanks guys and gals...info much appreciated.

Greg
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-15-2018, 07:14 PM
gvetsch gvetsch is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 15
Default

regarding cortland or others..Does a double taper floating line prefer a fast action rod or moderate action or both.
I have an Orvis Clearwater 9'-5wt and would like to try a double taper.
The Orvis is classified as moderate action.


Greg
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:54 AM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default

You kinda got the idea that a rod with a more moderate action will handle DT better than a stiffer tip casting fast action rod,,,, but that doesn't mean the moderate rod will not handle the WF line as well as a DT.

There is good reason most flylines sold are some sort of WF design and that is they simply as easier to cast for most anglers under most conditions.

DTs do land softer which for fishing small flies in calm conditions can be advantageous, but DTs are blown around more in the wind and some rod action / angler skill combinations make shorter casts (and casting for distance) harder to execute.

The so called advantage of having a reversible flyline in a DT isn't really such a big deal anymore,,, as with proper care (frequent cleaning and line dressing) a modern WF fly will last most anglers several years.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-16-2018, 05:25 PM
gvetsch gvetsch is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 15
Default

No kinda got the idea at all. Never used a DT line nor have I used my mod action Orvis yet(or any other). Just curious how they perform together.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-16-2018, 09:20 PM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default

Ok,,,, a moderate action rod typically lets the angler feel the rod load deeper into the bend of the rod with the same amount of line out as compared to a stiffer fast action rod. This would be somewhat advantageous when using a DT line where the first 20 - 30 feet of line will weigh less the equivalent length of a WF line.

So if you wish to use a DT line,,, then you may find the moderate action easier to feel the cast compared to a fast action rod with the same line.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-16-2018, 09:32 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pikebreath View Post
Ok,,,, a moderate action rod typically lets the angler feel the rod load deeper into the bend of the rod with the same amount of line out as compared to a stiffer fast action rod. This would be somewhat advantageous when using a DT line where the first 20 - 30 feet of line will weigh less the equivalent length of a WF line.

So if you wish to use a DT line,,, then you may find the moderate action easier to feel the cast compared to a fast action rod with the same line.
Pike,
If the line matches the AFTMA standard, the first 30' of both WF lines and DT lines will weight
the same.
A fast action rod requires more mass to make it perform correctly, a WF just doesn't have the mass after the running line appears therefore a fast action rod works better with s DT line

And fast action really translated to a rod that is marked incorrectly as to the line weight required to fish it.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:32 PM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Pike,
If the line matches the AFTMA standard, the first 30' of both WF lines and DT lines will weight
the same.
A fast action rod requires more mass to make it perform correctly, a WF just doesn't have the mass after the running line appears therefore a fast action rod works better with s DT line

And fast action really translated to a rod that is marked incorrectly as to the line weight required to fish it.

Don
Don,

I see your point and agree that if you want to carry more than the head of the fly line in the air,,,then the heavier running line of the DT will be easier to hold in the air with the faster action rod which will now be properly loaded.

However, for short casts less than thirty feet which is a pretty typical cast for stream trout fishing, a slower rod would allow the angler better control of the DT line as there now may not be enough mass to properly load a faster rod.

So I guess it boils down to what your expected use of the line and rod combination. If you wish to false cast 40- 50 feet of DT in the air, then I agree the faster action rod would hold it up better than a slower rod,,, but for shorter casts, I would grab my softer rod regardless of the line taper.

my two cents....
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-17-2018, 05:43 AM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 2,516
Default

You can get the best of both worlds with a long rear taper like Airflo's River and Stream and Cortland Omni-verse. A long rear taper allows mending both in air and on the water where the running line on WF lines cause a disconnect. A long rear taper is much nicer for roll casting.

Short rear tapers and extreme torpedo heads are awesome for loading a fast rod in close, especially if you are a novice caster. These lines are over weight and suck the life out of your rod. SA GMX, Rio Grand and even Gold are weight forward and heavy. Good lines for a beginner but extremely limiting as one progresses into more precise casting.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-17-2018, 06:07 AM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default

Well, since thread has taken such an interesting anyways,,, here are a couple links that discuss fly line taper vs rod action and the merits of WF vs DT.

https://www.fishwest.com/blog/spence...s-double-taper

https://midcurrent.com/experts/why-f...per-fly-lines/
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-17-2018, 07:46 AM
35 whelen's Avatar
35 whelen 35 whelen is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: N.W OF EDMONTON AND EAST OF GRAND PRAIRIE
Posts: 2,109
Default

I ordered this from Amazon 26 bucks

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-17-2018, 07:59 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,239
Default

Pike......

I read the articles and frankly for most trout fishing a DT line that works at 30' is the best choice. Why, it roll casts better, able to cast a larger range of flies, able to do a variety of casts like reach, tuck and curves.
WF lines are distance lines or lines designed to carry a lot of weighted flies. I use them for pike flies and bass bugs.
I use one long belly WF for long leadering chironomids. This is a Sci An.
ultimate trout.
All the BS about 1/2 weight heavy is so that the manufacturers can mislabel rods. Of course, they are aided by the line manufacturers mislabelling tbe fly line boxes with the incorrect line weights.
Here is a perfect example of the BS peddled to the angling public.


Sci Ang lines


Amplitude MPX WF6 175
Amplitude Trout WF6 160
Amplitude Anadro WF 6 200
Sonar Stillwarer Clear Camo WF 6 185
Sonar Stillwater Emerger Tip WF 6 185
Sonar Stillwater Seamless Density WF6 210
Sonar Stillwater Parabolic. WF 6 210

AFTMA WF 6 = 160 grains

The real line weights are ONLY ON THE WEB SITE. DO NOT TRUST THE BOX LABEL.
it should be noted that only ONE of the lines listed conform to the standard.

Don.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:01 AM
Bushrat's Avatar
Bushrat Bushrat is online now
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Pike......

I read the articles and frankly for most trout fishing a DT line that works at 30' is the best choice. Why, it roll casts better, able to cast a larger range of flies, able to do a variety of casts like reach, tuck and curves.
WF lines are distance lines or lines designed to carry a lot of weighted flies. I use them for pike flies and bass bugs.
I use one long belly WF for long leadering chironomids. This is a Sci An.
ultimate trout.
I agree, I'm mostly a stream fisherman and find DT lines more forgiving and easier to handle for shorter distance casting. Also like that when one end is worn out, reverse the line and use the 'new' end without having to buy another line, For my purposes it's two new lines in one. Only problem is I find fewer DT lines on the store shelves as time goes by, I believe for that very reason. Haven't seen a 'Level' line in decades, which is what I started out with 45 years ago and used them for years, I couldn't afford more than $7 for a line, found them serviceable for what I used them for. I didn't find an overly huge advantage in presentation or catch rates when switching to DT or WF lines. I think we often get caught up in the keeping up with the Jones's mentality of buying $125 lines because it somehow might make you a better fisherman.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:05 AM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default

Link showing difference in tapers between Cortland's 444 WF and DT (peach - the original 444 classic line series)

https://www.cortlandline.com/collect...ts/444-classic

You will notice that both the 444 wf and dt lines are true 6 weights (160 grains by AFTMA standards).
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:29 AM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pikebreath View Post
Link showing difference in tapers between Cortland's 444 WF and DT (peach - the original 444 classic line series)

https://www.cortlandline.com/collect...ts/444-classic

You will notice that both the 444 wf and dt lines are true 6 weights (160 grains by AFTMA standards).

Yupe,

And my grain scale agrees.

Amazing how some companies feel free to lie to the customers.

Cortland is the bulk of my lines - I have DT444's in 2>8 wt. dry lines. The sinkers are all over the place. Cortland mostly.

And Brushrat, the tackle shops sell what the customer has been sold on. Buy a WF and get 2/3's the life of the DT. Now I just gotta wonder who benefits from that story.

Follow the money. Can't miss.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:49 AM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default

With widespread use of stiffer and lighter graphite in rod building, we have seen an evolution of rods towards faster tip casting actions,,, and stiffer rods typically have less bend / feel down into the butt / handle of the rod. I suspect this has created a generation or two of casters who through rote casting and muscle memory have developed casting strokes dependent on the timing and cadence necessary to cast their fast action rods. In other words they have become mechanical casters with a very consistent (typically fast) casting stroke very dependent on timing over feel.

So in todays world, we have a lot of casters looking for that rod and line combination that suits their casting stroke (which is good for business for the fly rod and fly line makers!!!)

That said, I would venture to argue that most really good casters can make pretty much any balanced rod / line combination perform admirably becuz they can cast by feel and can readily adjust their stroke to match the rod line combination in their hand.

Back in the day of bamboo and glass and even into the early graphite days, rods were much softer in action requiring the angler to adjust the casting stroke by feel to match the rods action.

By the same token, many fly anglers (new and intermediate) would do well to chose a slower medium action fly rod on which to learn to better feel their casting stroke.

And FWIW, I agree that for lighter line, shorter casting applications like dry fishing for stream trout, a DT line with a slow to medium action rod can be the ticket to enjoyable and successful days on the water.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:24 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pikebreath View Post
With widespread use of stiffer and lighter graphite in rod building, we have seen an evolution of rods towards faster tip casting actions,,, and stiffer rods typically have less bend / feel down into the butt / handle of the rod. I suspect this has created a generation or two of casters who through rote casting and muscle memory have developed casting strokes dependent on the timing and cadence necessary to cast their fast action rods. In other words they have become mechanical casters with a very consistent (typically fast) casting stroke very dependent on timing over feel.

So in todays world, we have a lot of casters looking for that rod and line combination that suits their casting stroke (which is good for business for the fly rod and fly line makers!!!)

That said, I would venture to argue that most really good casters can make pretty much any balanced rod / line combination perform admirably becuz they can cast by feel and can readily adjust their stroke to match the rod line combination in their hand.

Back in the day of bamboo and glass and even into the early graphite days, rods were much softer in action requiring the angler to adjust the casting stroke by feel to match the rods action.

By the same token, many fly anglers (new and intermediate) would do well to chose a slower medium action fly rod on which to learn to better feel their casting stroke.

And FWIW, I agree that for lighter line, shorter casting applications like dry fishing for stream trout, a DT line with a slow to medium action rod can be the ticket to enjoyable and successful days on the water.
Pike....

Fishermen have been lead down the garden path and feed BS.
Graphite rods suffer an incredible problem. Thematerial is so stiff that the only way to make a decent casting rod in lighter line weights is to make either the rod thinner or thinner side walls. In both cases, a fly will and have completely torn off the tip.
So, in order not to have this incredible failure rate, the rods are made with thicker sidewalls and thereby stiffer and taking a much heavier line to bend them. So what do tbe manufacturers do, call them fast action rods when really they are rods that are mislabelled. Nearly every graphite rod made in under 6 weight requires a line weight one or more line weights heavier than the rod is labelled.
Don't buy into the BS.
For those that get caught by the underlining crap are readily identified as looking for all tbe world like a windshield wiper on high.
Now I gotta get back to building rods that are true to the line weight suggested.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:33 PM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Pike....

For those that get caught by the underlining crap are readily identified as looking for all tbe world like a windshield wiper on high.

Don

Hey Don,,,, that description is so very true ....

Thanks for the insight and the chuckle!!!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-17-2018, 04:22 PM
gvetsch gvetsch is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 15
Default

Some great info here guys, and thanks. Definitely confirms what i have been reading about.

Greg
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-17-2018, 04:34 PM
gvetsch gvetsch is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 15
Default

So should i be moving up to a 6wt DT line on my 5 wt rod.? Or does the Cortland true weight say no.
I have my eye on the Cortland 444 DT.

Greg
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-17-2018, 05:18 PM
commieboy commieboy is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Calgary
Posts: 353
Default

Thought I'd mention.....

http://store.hookhack.com/Hook-Hackl...partments/713/

Apparently, this line is made by Cortland to specifications from hookhack. I don't know if it's true but I've read and heard a lot about it. I've also tried both the 444 and the HookHack Hi Floater. Both are really good lines.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-17-2018, 06:06 PM
Pikebreath Pikebreath is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gvetsch View Post
So should i be moving up to a 6wt DT line on my 5 wt rod.? Or does the Cortland true weight say no.
I have my eye on the Cortland 444 DT.

Greg
My first inclination would be to go for the 5wt DT if the Clearwater is indeed the moderate action Orvis claims it to be.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-17-2018, 07:05 PM
gvetsch gvetsch is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 15
Default

well i guess that's another thing to consider.Thanks again.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-20-2018, 07:33 AM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 2,516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Pike....

Fishermen have been lead down the garden path and feed BS.
Graphite rods suffer an incredible problem. Thematerial is so stiff that the only way to make a decent casting rod in lighter line weights is to make either the rod thinner or thinner side walls. In both cases, a fly will and have completely torn off the tip.
So, in order not to have this incredible failure rate, the rods are made with thicker sidewalls and thereby stiffer and taking a much heavier line to bend them. So what do tbe manufacturers do, call them fast action rods when really they are rods that are mislabelled. Nearly every graphite rod made in under 6 weight requires a line weight one or more line weights heavier than the rod is labelled.
Don't buy into the BS.
For those that get caught by the underlining crap are readily identified as looking for all tbe world like a windshield wiper on high.
Now I gotta get back to building rods that are true to the line weight suggested.

Don
With all due respect, this whole post is BS. Most every well made fast action rod is true to weight if you know how to use them. The wind is up and the river is open if you would like to test your theory.

Modern fast action rods throw arrow tight loops that buck the wind and deliver pin point accuracy compared to medium action rods and simply blow away fiber and bamboo.

Slow rods are like traditional long bows. They are challenging and nostalgic but comparing them performance wise to a modern compound is a fool's errand; comparing to a high powered rifle is ridiculous.

I have some old fiberglass and bamboo rods and can cast them too, but I see absolutely no reason to be sitting on the bank waiting for the wind to go down or watching a large trout feeding out of reach on the opposite side of a medium river like it was 1970.

But, to each his own. Enjoy your gear as I am sure you will but please don't try to explain how 99% of us fly fisherman are doing it wrong while you alone possess some divine wisdom. It isn't modern fishermen that that have been lead down the garden path and fed BS, it is a very few left miles behind stuck in a rut.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-20-2018, 12:22 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750 View Post
With all due respect, this whole post is BS. Most every well made fast action rod is true to weight if you know how to use them. The wind is up and the river is open if you would like to test your theory.

Modern fast action rods throw arrow tight loops that buck the wind and deliver pin point accuracy compared to medium action rods and simply blow away fiber and bamboo.

Slow rods are like traditional long bows. They are challenging and nostalgic but comparing them performance wise to a modern compound is a fool's errand; comparing to a high powered rifle is ridiculous.

I have some old fiberglass and bamboo rods and can cast them too, but I see absolutely no reason to be sitting on the bank waiting for the wind to go down or watching a large trout feeding out of reach on the opposite side of a medium river like it was 1970.

But, to each his own. Enjoy your gear as I am sure you will but please don't try to explain how 99% of us fly fisherman are doing it wrong while you alone possess some divine wisdom. It isn't modern fishermen that that have been lead down the garden path and fed BS, it is a very few left miles behind stuck in a rut.

Really, you all kidding aren't ya. There isn't an experienced FF that hasn't encountered tbe BS pounded out by the manufacturers and had to add one or line weight in order to get a decent casting rod.
At one time you could by rods that worked with the line weight specified. Not much any more.
I have/had Orvis, Scott, Winston rods that cast the suggested line weights well. But then the chase was on for stiffer and stiffer rods and tbe line weights went out the window along
The truth on line weights.


Don
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-21-2018, 06:59 AM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 2,516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Andersen View Post
Really, you all kidding aren't ya. There isn't an experienced FF that hasn't encountered tbe BS pounded out by the manufacturers and had to add one or line weight in order to get a decent casting rod.
At one time you could by rods that worked with the line weight specified. Not much any more.
I have/had Orvis, Scott, Winston rods that cast the suggested line weights well. But then the chase was on for stiffer and stiffer rods and tbe line weights went out the window along
The truth on line weights.


Don
There is a learning curve to endure when upgrading to the performance of modern rods. I have yet to encounter anyone that chooses to suck the life out of a fast action rod to make it more like the rod they are trying to upgrade from but if you have, then so be it.

I haven't fished all the latest and greatest rods but have fished several of the Sage flagship rods as well as Hardy Zenith and Loop Opti rods. I fish them all with true to weight trout tapers and these lines are what is most recommended on fly fishing forums. They all perform perfectly.

I have read extensively on two other very popular rods that I hope to one day acquire when on close out or used pricing allows. Scott's Radium and G Loomis NRX are also rated as true to weight high performance rods.

I too enjoy a medium action rod where very delicate presentations are required to spooky trout. My Sage 4wt. ZXL is a perfect rod to fish on Stauffer but it would be limiting on any water much larger.

Anyway, to each his own. I just wanted to point out that you do not speak for the majority of fish fishermen and your opinion of modern rods is simply that, an opinion. Suggesting that everyone except you have been "fed BS and led down the garden path" is idiotic nonsense and somewhat self serving considering you manufacturer slow action antique replicas.

I can't imagine why you insist on using insulting and degrading language when speaking of modern rods that the vast majority of fly fishermen own. After insulting an individual they are highly unlikely to ever want anything more to do with your fly rods or you. This is very unfortunate as you make great effort in attempting to educating the public on environmental issues and do possess a wealth of valuable knowledge that gets lost in the divisiveness of your demeanor.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.