Currently have 8ft 4 weight, should I get a 9ft 9in 6 wt?

[biologistangler]

I've only ever fly-fished with my Sage 8-ft 4 weight rod on small to medium sized streams for trout, but at times it's felt too short, like when I want to high-stick nymph fish. Will a 9ft 9in 6 weight rod still be a good size for small/medium sized streams, or will it end up being too long?

 

[seattlesetters]

A 9'9" 6wt is a lot of fly rod.... even in the largest rivers. I'd consider it too big for small to medium streams.

That being said, I don't nymph.....I only fly fish. I still can't imagine you'd need anything that big for small-stream trout.

 

[mattbr]

That being said, I don't nymph.....I only fly fish.

Lol, be nice to our local bobber boys.

It's my understanding that a 10' x weight won't feel like a 9' x weight. I could see the use of a 10' 5 wt for throwing big bobber drop shot rigs and the like, but the 10' 6 may feel like a bit much.

Then again, I'm using 7 and 8 weights as my streamer rods, so what do I know.

Perhaps look into a 10' 4 wt?

 

[Ard]

Hi guys,

As long that I've been around this forum I still find it hard to tell someone, somewhere else, that I don't know what they need or should buy. I would ask, are you currently satisfied with a days fishing, i.e. are you enjoying the experience and catching some trout?
A 9'6" six weight of any of the quality brands sounds like a great rod to own but only the person who will use it and pay for it should make the decision as to whether or not to move on the idea. matter of fact, since you are willing to ask strangers for their yea or nay on the acquisition suggests you have your own doubts. Perhaps you may be influenced by marketing, videos or otherwise. It's easy for us to get roped into believing that a certain new rod will somehow completely change our fishing experiences. I myself have lived & fished through an era where that was a possibility when the advent of graphite rods came to market. While there are still significant advancements made almost yearly in rod design, only the individual angler can decide what may be right for him or her.

I don't know that what I just said will be in the least helpful but I went and typed it so.............

It does sound like a nice streamer rod though

 

[redwing]

I have a 10ft 6wt Scott Radian I use for my float tube and nymphing. I like it a lot as it gives extra length for both applications. It is ok for big drys and dropper. Have not tried streamers on a river just on lakes.

 

[sweetandsalt]

I have a feeling the OP has an opportunity to acquire a long #6 hence his inquiry. I own a 9'6"/#6 old Loomis IMX which I use like once a year as an early season lightly weighted streamer rod. I fish it on a moderately large tailwater. It is too much rod for nymphing smaller rivers in my opinion.

Not knowing much about where and how you fish, just that you like your 8'/#4 and wish to expand your horizons, I would recommend looking into a 9'/#5 for versatility.

 

[gt05254]

"Not knowing much about where and how you fish, just that you like your 8'/#4 and wish to expand your horizons, I would recommend looking into a 9'/#5 for versatility"

I second that suggestion completely. For years I've fished rivers like the Batten Kill and Mettowee with an older Orvis 9' 5wt. Perfect for those smallish rivers. I hope I never break that rod!

Gary

 

[sweetandsalt]

older Orvis 9' 5wt. Perfect for those smallish rivers. I hope I never break that rod!

Which one? I spoke to the Orvis rod shop not long ago about a replacement tip for a 1985 Western 8'9"/#5...no sections in stock and they are unable to roll a new one. Oh well.

 

[gt05254]

Some people hate 'em, but I have 3 of 'em in different weights: Trident TL TipFlex. My favorite warmwater stick is an old 9.5', 7wt HLS. LOL, talk about both ends of the flex spectrum!

Gary

 

[zjory]

Spent first 18 months fishing with just an 8ft 4wt. I also fish small to medium trout streams. Grabbed a 9ft 5wt last month and feel like it lets me do a lot more, but is still well suited to smaller streams.

 

[sweetandsalt]

Some people hate 'em, but I have 3 of 'em in different weights: Trident TL TipFlex.

That series was designed by a man who was at Orvis for only a little while. I have a 8 1/2'/#4 2-pc. TL that I wouldn't trade for any H2.

 

[gt05254]

I have the 2-piece 9' 6wt. Use it quite a bit. Funny thing, last year I wrapped rods for Orvis for awhile (mind-numbing boredom cured me of that within a month); but have never cast any of their latest rods.
Gary

 

[jgraham]

Agreed that the 9' 6" 6wt is ALOT of rod. I still don't understand this newer thought of crazy long rods. A 9' 6wt would be just fine.

 

[sweetandsalt]

but have never cast any of their latest rods.

H2's are widely regarded as the best rods Orvis has offered since the late 1970's - mid 80's. I don't disagree but I have issues. Leaving aside the hingey, bend in the wrong places, mid-flex rod the tip-flex modes are quite good, it is just they could easily be so much better. They are light, well built and appointed with quality components and guides. It's as if they chose to numb them down by slowing their medium fast tapers a bit too much for customer accessibility and limiting their lower taper power, I suspect to preserve super light weight and believing they are potent enough. Therein seems to be the issue, it is not that they can't do better but rather they think their way is the best way. So, they don't want more line speed? They are fine running out of steam at distance earlier than their performance oriented competitors? They have H2 mid-flex and tip-flex and they need a third variant, H2 mega-flex...or just H3.

 

[clouserguyky]

My opinion will differ from a lot of folks here, but if I had only an 8' 4 weight my next rod would be a 9' 6 weight. I have a 9'6" 5 weight (havent used it yet!) but I do have an 8' 4 weight as a small stream/dry fly rod and a 9' 6 weight as an all around/go-to rod. If you wanted a specialized nymphing rod after having those two, you could look into longer stuff.

In my opinion, a 9' 6 weight is one of the most versatile tools in fly fishing. One reasonably fast 6 weight rod with a couple spools for different line applications can cover countless situations.

 

[moucheur2003]

My opinion will differ from a lot of folks here, but if I had only an 8' 4 weight my next rod would be a 9' 6 weight. I have a 9'6" 5 weight (havent used it yet!) but I do have an 8' 4 weight as a small stream/dry fly rod and a 9' 6 weight as an all around/go-to rod. If you wanted a specialized nymphing rod after having those two, you could look into longer stuff.

In my opinion, a 9' 6 weight is one of the most versatile tools in fly fishing. One reasonably fast 6 weight rod with a couple spools for different line applications can cover countless situations.

My recommendation as well. Two of the first three graphite rods I ever owned, 25+ years ago now, were an 8' 4 and a 9' 6. I still fish them.

Although if you aren't going to be fishing big water in a lot of wind, and if you aren't going to be throwing heavy streamers, Gary's suggestion of a 9' 5 would be fine too. The 6 just gives you a little more oomph on the power scale in case you need it, without sacrificing much in versatility.

To my mind the 9 1/2' 6 is best for a narrower range of heavier-duty conditions, and sounds like it might be too much rod for the kind of fishing you usually do.

 

[sweetandsalt]

I too rely upon and enjoy a 9'/#6 but unlike the OP, I tend to fish larger rivers when using it. He has specified small to medium waters hence the merits of a 5-weight instead. Line weights #4, 5 and 6 cover virtually all my trout fishing and I find little merit in fishing rods longer than 9' as I am not nymphing. Only for Atlantic salmon and steelhead have I fished single handed 9 1/2 and 10' #7 and 8-weight rods to enhance mending during the swing.

We had a new guy arrive for an Acklins Island bonefish trip a few years ago with two brand new Sage rods, an 8 and 9, recommended to him by his local shop. The ignoramus sales clerk encouraged him to buy 10 foot models...just the thing you don't want in the incessant Bahamian breeze. He was handicapped for sure.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, fishing a western spring creek where I favor an 8 1/2'/#4, a friend showed up with his new 4-weight, a 10' Scott. I tried it out and it was impossibly unwieldy. Out of a float tube fishing Calibaetis, OK but in the willow and alder choked confines of a meandering meadow stream, no.

We are fortunate to have a plethora of specialized fly rods from 0 to 15-weight and from 6' to 18' (just guessing). Sometimes though and often, a standard issue, medium fast, progressive 9'/#5 really is the best choice.

 

[bloomagoo]

They have H2 mid-flex and tip-flex and they need a third variant, H2 mega-flex...or just H3.

Do you know something we don't? Was listening to Rosenbauer's latest podcast and there was an inadvertent (?) slip from his guest regarding testing of a new Orvis rod.

 

[sweetandsalt]

Do you know something we don't?

No, I don't. I am speculating based on what I believe they should do, but they tell me nothing. Have I tried to discuss this with Rosenbauer and other Orvisi, you bet but the last thing they want is someone blabbing their plans over the internet. Still both their product cycle and competitors success imply new and upgraded is needed.

 

[silver creek]

I've only ever fly-fished with my Sage 8-ft 4 weight rod on small to medium sized streams for trout, but at times it's felt too short, like when I want to high-stick nymph fish. Will a 9ft 9in 6 weight rod still be a good size for small/medium sized streams, or will it end up being too long?

As I have said before, a fly rod does two things = cast and fight fish.

As to casting, the rod length is a factor depending on whether the stream has trees and whether the trees overhand the banks. On my small/medium streams they do so a 9' 9" rod would be way too long.

The second factor is casting accuracy. Generally, the longer the rod = longer casts and less accuracy. A longer rod is a longer lever, and longer levers multiply our casting stroke. So we gain leverage with a loss of precision in controlling the rod tip motion. Would you rather paint a picture by holding the end of a 4" brush or a 10" brush? Which brush will allow you more precision?

So with a longer rod you gain increased reach, mending, and casting length ability at the loss of casting accuracy.

We cast with the upper section of the fly rod and fight fish with the rod butt,

A longer rod has a stronger butt section than a shorter rod. The rod taper means the longer the rod, the thicker and stronger the butt section. So a 9' 9" 6 wt rod will have the butt section strength of a 6.6 wt 9 ft rod and your 8 ft 4 wt rod has the approximate butt strength of a 3 wt 9 ft rod of similar rod action. So there will be 3.6 line weight difference in between your two rods based on a 9 ft rod standard

The second factor is fighting and landing the fish. A longer rod makes it more difficult to bring a fish to hand or to a net.

Then we get to line weight. Do you really need a 6 wt rod for the size fish you are going to catch in the small/medium sized stream? Are they going to be routinely 20 inches or 12 inches or 8 inches? Do you need a 6 wt rod for the size flies you are going to cast? Are you going to be casting bass bug sized flies or larger streamers in a small/medium sized stream.

You know your the waters and the fish you are targeting and I do not. However, I suggest a less radical move and suggest you consider whether a 9 ft 5 wt might fit your needs better.