Orvis H3 3D 9' 5wt first cast thoughts...

[cwb124]

Finally jumped on it and got an Orvis H3 3D 9' 5wt for fishing western waters and nymphing some east coast streams.

First impression is how damn light it is. The top 3 section pieces weigh absolutely nothing. That is odd to me. I noticed myself being super extra careful as I equated lightweight to be fragile. I hope that isn't the case.

Threw it together and not surprisingly it's just not the prettiest rod I've owned but that rarely bothers me. I'm much more of a function over form kind of person. It's matte black with the hideous bumper sticker near the handle. Reel seat is all black which is fine. I threw on my 10 year old Orvis battenkill 3 spoke model that's been my workhorse forever. On it has a new Orvis Hydros HD 5wt line that I picked up on clearance earlier this winter. Couldn't turn it down for $59 considering their newest high end offering is an offensive $129.

Threw on a 9' 4x tapered leader to play around in the back yard. A hula hoop served as my target. Absolutely first thing I noticed was this line is LOUD. As it slid through the guides it sounded like someone was starting up a string trimmer. I've never experience such loud fly line. I'm not sure if it bothers me or not.

Started casting and here's my first impressions. This rod has so much power that I could almost cast the line off the reel. I've never been able to do that before. The line just WENT. I had maybe 4 rotations of line left on the reel when I got it up and out as far as I could. I've always been able to get line out there a ways. Being 6'5" certainly helps a little. But this was nothing I've experienced before.

I did have an issue with short term accuracy which may either be exposing a flaw in my cast or the new tapered leader that was coiled up in the package. Didn't have time to straighten it out and try it again but I will. If I'm still having issues I may head down to the Orvis shop and get a casting lesson to see what improvements can be made.

Whether this rod is worth it will have to wait until I get it out on the water. But so far I like the power and feel of it. It seemed natural to cast for me which I suppose is a very positive review. I'll update when I get this thing out in the wind and throwing nymph rigs and big stimmies.

 

[sweetandsalt]

I compared Orvis's 9'/#5 H3 F & D. The Orvis guy was high on the F but I distinctly liked the D better. A very good rod but I'd not like that textured line either. SA Mastery Trout or RIO Gold.

 

[cwb124]

I went back and forth and decided since I have an Orvis Superfine Touch carbon 8'6" 4wt specifically for dry fly fishing, I'd go with the 3D which gives a little more power for bigger flies/streamers.

Kinda wish I got it in a 6wt now but I think it'll be fine.

 

[sweetandsalt]

While I'm a fan of 8 1/2'/#4's for smaller waters, on rivers your new H3D is a much better dry fly rod.

 

[okaloosa]

Light and powerful is a great combination....and light does not necessarily mean fragile...I have caught a 100 lb shark and many tarpon on an old 2 piece GLX 9 ft 10 weight, which at the time was accused of being fragile. caught 20 to 25 lb jack crevalle and reds on 2 piece GLX 7wt.....high sticking, car doors, using the rod to undo stuck flies, and over head fans break rods, not proper fishing technique no matter how light the rod IMO...sounds like you have a great rod...I still have an Orvis 9 ft 9wt that I have tried to break on big saltwater fish, a real workhorse....norm
i do agree, what where they thinking with that decal!!!

 

[clouserguyky]

The 9' #5 H3s are both awesome. I've tried out both the F and D and loved both. I think the D would be an incredible big river rod while the F is a little more versatile for what I would need from a trout rod. My experience was the F could shoot all the line you want, just not quite as accurate on long shots as the D, but had better accuracy at all distances shorter than maybe 50'. It's not that it was impossible to cast long and accurately at the same time, it's just it was very very easy to do so at shorter distances while the D was easier to cast accurately at distance, while casting fine in close. I wound up with the 10' #5 F as my all around trout rod, but I find myself eyeing the 8'6" #4 F and the 9' 6 weight D sometimes.

 

[sweetandsalt]

I tried the 8 1/2'/#4 (F only) and there are much better rods in this size out there. Sage X is a winner.

 

[cwb124]

While I'm a fan of 8 1/2'/#4's for smaller waters, on rivers your new H3D is a much better dry fly rod.

Totally agree. Each has their place. I like the 8'6" 4wt superfine for higher elevation smaller waters as well as some of the tributaries in Idaho chock full of cutties and rainbows. First fish I caught on the 8'6" 4wt superfine carbon was an 18" fat cutthroat. That was a lot of fun on that rod. I'll leave the H3 3D for the bigger waters where I need to counter the wind, cast way across seams, and encounter larger fish.

 

[okaloosa]

The 9' #5 H3s are both awesome. I've tried out both the F and D and loved both. I think the D would be an incredible big river rod while the F is a little more versatile for what I would need from a trout rod. My experience was the F could shoot all the line you want, just not quite as accurate on long shots as the D, but had better accuracy at all distances shorter than maybe 50'. It's not that it was impossible to cast long and accurately at the same time, it's just it was very very easy to do so at shorter distances while the D was easier to cast accurately at distance, while casting fine in close. I wound up with the 10' #5 F as my all around trout rod, but I find myself eyeing the 8'6" #4 F and the 9' 6 weight D sometimes.

curious as to which one feels lighter in your hand w/o reel and line?

 

[clouserguyky]

curious as to which one feels lighter in your hand w/o reel and line?

If I remember correctly, the D probably felt a little lighter in hand. In terms of swing weight/perceived weight during casting, I didn't notice a difference. It's been almost a year though since I cast them back to back, but I remember that both are very light rods.

 

[Flyrod Buddy]

I went back and forth and decided since I have an Orvis Superfine Touch carbon 8'6" 4wt specifically for dry fly fishing, I'd go with the 3D which gives a little more power for bigger flies/streamers.

Kinda wish I got it in a 6wt now but I think it'll be fine.

Superfine Glass are nice Rods too I got 3 of them, I have an H3 for an 8wt and its a sweet rod, but the Superfine Glass they are great for durability and are pretty light for glass. The 5wt is my nymph rod


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Flyrod Buddy]

Totally agree. Each has their place. I like the 8'6" 4wt superfine for higher elevation smaller waters as well as some of the tributaries in Idaho chock full of cutties and rainbows. First fish I caught on the 8'6" 4wt superfine carbon was an 18" fat cutthroat. That was a lot of fun on that rod. I'll leave the H3 3D for the bigger waters where I need to counter the wind, cast way across seams, and encounter larger fish.

I love my 4wt superfine for bass fishing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[cwb124]

I found the glass rods to be too whippy for my tastes. Like casting a CB antenna. But oddly enough I grew up and was taught fly fishing on an ancient cortland 7'6" glass rod so it does have a place in my heart, especially for smaller, tactical waters. I inherited my dad's 40 year old 7' 5wt Orvis battenkill bamboo so that's kind of been my primary small east coast brook trout stream fishing rod.