ezmagun

Fluorocarbon vs Monofilament for fluke fishing

Rate this topic

19 posts in this topic

Does anyone know why fluorocarbon is used so often for fluke leaders as opposed to mono? Does the vis really matter when fluke fishing vs breaking strength?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ezmagun said:

Does anyone know why fluorocarbon is used so often for fluke leaders as opposed to mono? Does the vis really matter when fluke fishing vs breaking strength?

The only reason I use flourocarbon for fluke is because flourocarbon is all I carry (for any species). But if I were to pick and chose which species I should use flouro for, fluke wouldn't be on that list. 

 

The reason I use flouro all the time, for any species is because I'm not buying into the cost aspect of it - sure it's a few more dollars...but in grand scheme of things, after spending whatever hundreds of dollars on your rods/reels, etc, I'm not going to fret over $5 dollars. And I'm not going to make things more of a puzzle than it needs to be.

 

But with that said, some of the more successful fishermen I know don't use flourocarbon and they obviously do well. So obviously it's not a game breaker in many cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive caught just as many fluke using mono as I have flouro

 

If the water is really clear, then flouro is your best bet.

 

But around me, water is rarely ever that clear so mono works just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I find fluro to possess superior abrasion resistance, it's a harder materiel than monofilament.  Visually they say it's less visible to fish, or refracts light differently and in a less conspicuous way.  While that may be a game changer on a shallow clear water flat, I doubt that aspect has any effect on the willingness of a fluke to take a lure or bait any more than the pure presentation of the drift or reteieve.  With that said iv used fluro a bunch and find it stands up to teeth better than mono, is it worth the extra cash? Only if it is to you...

Edited by DeepBlue85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Mono: significantly more abrasion resistant for the same diameter lines(you can test this yourself at home fairly easily), cheaper, softer, sinks a little slower (positive or negative depending)

 

fluoro: stiffer, sinks a little faster, refracts a bit less light, stronger breaking strength for diameter of line i.e. a 30lb mono is going to be generally a bit thicker than 30lb fluoro

Edited by Snook_Slayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salt strong has YT vids clearly demonstrating abrasion resistance advantage of mono over fluoro. 
 

I use mono. 
 

That said fluoro might help in shallow and clear water. 
 

Whichever you pick, try to stay in the 20-30 lb test range unless you are fishing Montauk/Nantucket where I haven’t found that it matters and I can use 40-50 lb mono. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Snook_Slayr said:

Mono: significantly more abrasion resistant for the same diameter lines(you can test this yourself at home fairly easily), cheaper, softer, sinks a little slower (positive or negative depending)

 

fluoro: stiffer, sinks a little faster, refracts a bit less light, stronger breaking strength for diameter of line i.e. a 30lb mono is going to be generally a bit thicker than 30lb fluoro


+1 this. 
 

I use flouro because, as another poster stated, it’s all I use. For the few dollars more I like it’s properties better. Reasons I use flouro: 

 

It sinks better and maybe a better action on quick jig?

 

It’s thinner (for same strength) and that’s less water resistance and possibly lighter weight needed to stay down. 
 

That said mono is a little cheaper. It has better abrasion properties, but this is not a big deal for me, would be more so for Tog. Can’t think of any reasons why I’d use mono.

 

At the end of the day, the type of line you pick here has very little importance (aside from weight, but even then within reason no biggie). I’d be more concerned with a bunch of other things like area, technique and lure/bait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40lb sufix tritanium plus is 3x more abrasion resistant and nearly half the stretch of 40lb seaguar flouro. Same strength, slightly thinner diameter. Momoi hi catch diamond isn't far behind. 

 

 

Flouro is just a marketable money grab. Nothing more. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 mins ago, RedGreen said:

40lb sufix tritanium plus is 3x more abrasion resistant and nearly half the stretch of 40lb seaguar flouro. Same strength, slightly thinner diameter. Momoi hi catch diamond isn't far behind. 

 

 

Flouro is just a marketable money grab. Nothing more. 

 

Objectively testing abrasion resistance is a bit of fool's errand. Results vary by whether the line is wet or dry and the exact configuration of the abrasive surface. Better strategy is just to go by personal experience of what is breaking or not for the type of fishing you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, DeepBlue85 said:

I find fluro to possess superior abrasion resistance, it's a harder materiel than monofilament.  

 

  i thought this also but then saw a youtube video by salt x (i think) and it proved that floro is actually less abrasion resistant. I copied this experiment with seaguar blue label floro and berkley big game mono (i think been awhile) and had the same results. also i have tested (not very scientifically) the visibility comparison of mono and floro in 1. glass of water 2. swimming pool 3.  ocean, and i do not see a difference. maybe fish see different. i know many disagree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously wonder how line visibility can be a concern with fish other than pelagic. Fluke especially as they live on the bottom, can you imagine the things that float past them each day. Beer cans, hats, clothing and even an occasional dead body combined with a stirred up bottom it's no wonder when you catch them most time with empty stomachs. At the end of your line is a lead head and a hook with attached offering. If the lead head with six inch curly tail or pink shine doesn't look unnatural to a fluke how could the line. IMHO I think the stiffness of the leader material has more to do with the action imparted to the jig. Twenty to thirty pound mono works for me, easy to knot and not stiff. Remember the old double hook rig that consisted of brass wire with a center loop which supported like a 150lb Dacron line with a leader hook at each end. I don't recall them being successful and the party boat mates must have hated them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JerseyJeb said:

Objectively testing abrasion resistance is a bit of fool's errand. Results vary by whether the line is wet or dry and the exact configuration of the abrasive surface. Better strategy is just to go by personal experience of what is breaking or not for the type of fishing you do.

And have you noticed a difference? I have. Ande vs momoi it's pretty obvious to me on the water which gets cut up more easily. I have dragged both through rocks and while ande shows cuts and threads momoi just shows some scuffing. I never noticed a difference between mono and flouro for abrasion resistance ever. Switching to momoi it was kind of shocking how much harder it was to break off snags when the leader was touching structure. 

 

The only argument could be for visibility which I also don't think is valid. Googs here think 30lb flouro is heavy while I'll go catch upper 30s snook on beaches at 11am in 18" of water on pink 80lb ande. The line thickness and color has way more to do with visibility than mono or flouro. You can find very detailed analysis of the visibility of flouro in the water and it's basically as visible as mono. 

 

Buy what you want but objectively flouro has no purpose except for those selling it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

10 hours ago, JerseyJeb said:

Objectively testing abrasion resistance is a bit of fool's errand. Results vary by whether the line is wet or dry and the exact configuration of the abrasive surface. Better strategy is just to go by personal experience of what is breaking or not for the type of fishing you do.

Salt strong soaked mono and fluoro in water for 3 hours and the results were the same

Edited by Snook_Slayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the only thing I would use floro for would be tuna. I went on a flats trip with a super well known guide who catches tons of fish and he doesn't  bother with floro that was enough to end any debate for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.