Pros and cons of mono and coated running lines

fishing hobo

Well-known member
Messages
404
Reaction score
67
Being a newbie in Spey Casting, I need to pick some brains. As Lewis mentioned in another thread about tear in the running line in his Jetstream line, I would assume that the mono running lines are more durable and cheaper. So what are the pros and cons of each for those who have been Spey Casting for a while?
Cheers.
 

jr spey

Well-known member
Messages
409
Reaction score
32
Location
SE Wisconsin
Being a newbie in Spey Casting, I need to pick some brains. As Lewis mentioned in another thread about tear in the running line in his Jetstream line, I would assume that the mono running lines are more durable and cheaper. So what are the pros and cons of each for those who have been Spey Casting for a while?
Cheers.
Some monos are cheaper, but not all. Also, my experience is that most flyline type running lines are more durable than most monos. OPST mono is very good, but not cheap. Many guys, for years and years, have used Trilene 50# Big Game line. It is much cheaper than the OPST and handles well until it starts getting pretty cold out. Not only does it get wiry then but I find it hard to handle with cold hands and/or gloves. Unfortunately, the near perfect solution has been off the market for about twenty years. I use the same 100' pieces of it for trout with a switch rod, steelies and salmon with a spey rod, and, believe it or not, sailfish with a big game fly rod. No point in talking further about it cause you just can't find it anymore. The closest is something that SA now distributes, but I can't recommend it as I've never used it. It's called a floating polyethelene mono running line. A couple of guides that used to use what I use that was discontinued feel this is the closest they've found. I've used lots of others over the years, but that wasn't the question posed by the OP.
 

flav

Well-known member
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
1,889
Location
oregon
Here's how I look at it;
Mono shoots farther and easier, but needs to be stretched and is hard to hold in the cold.

Coated shooting line floats and is easier to deal with in the cold, can be mended, but sticks to the surface so you need to hold more slack line in loops and it doesn't cast as far.

I've used both, but I prefer coated line. I get plenty of distance, 70 to 80 feet is my comfort zone, and beyond that I feel I lose control of my fly anyway. What I like best is the mass and friction hold my cast back a little and causes the head to turn over better and lay out straighter than when I cast with mono. For me its all about line control and presentation.
 

fishing hobo

Well-known member
Messages
404
Reaction score
67
Thank you. Please keep the opinions coming, I'm keen to hear both sides of the story.
 

Ard

Forum Member
Staff member
Messages
26,183
Reaction score
16,352
Location
Wasilla / Skwentna, Alaska
I've been waiting to see what came in on the question and for you to reply..........

I've used rods that were rigged with short heads and various shooting lines, this goes all the way back to making my own for use casting for Kings near Sodus Point NY. on Lake Ontario. Back then we spooled either Amnesia or flat mono. While todays stuff is better I must admit that I prefer integrated vinyl coated runners and longer heads. There's no need to elaborate on reasons because they are covered in an above post. What I will say is that once one learns to cast well the need for shooting lines may be somewhat diminished. I do shoot my vinyl runner but seldom over 20 feet of it. It's just not necessary for me even on large rivers.

One thing I find holds true throughout my experiences with fly casting. That truth would be that regardless of where we fish, how far we can cast, on a whole we believe that there is a fish just ten feet out of range. Reality is usually different, unless the only holding spot for a fish is 100 feet away and there is no way to get any closer you sometimes are better served by finding a better place to fish ;)
 

ottosmagic13

Well-known member
Messages
986
Reaction score
647
Location
Upstate NY
I've used rods that were rigged with short heads and various shooting lines, this goes all the way back to making my own for use casting for Kings near Sodus Point NY. on Lake Ontario.
Hey! That's my neck of the woods. I teach in the district next to Sodus, live in Rochester. If you are ever hankering for a revisit, I have a 11ft 8wt Switch rod that I could use some schooling on.
 

fishing hobo

Well-known member
Messages
404
Reaction score
67
Thank you Ard. I ended up buying both so that I can try each and see what they are like. I didn't buy the top end stuff as I am likely to damage the lines at the outset like I did when learning to fly-cast. Head is a Scandi form SA, running line from Hardy (coated) and Scierra (mono).
 

fishing hobo

Well-known member
Messages
404
Reaction score
67
I have another question. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that a 50# Trilene mono was used in the past.
for #9/10 Scandi, what diameter mono running line should I have bought as the 30lbs seems awfully thin! Man this Spey line is all too complicated, no wonder I was apprehensive dipping my toes in this game LOL.
 

Ard

Forum Member
Staff member
Messages
26,183
Reaction score
16,352
Location
Wasilla / Skwentna, Alaska
Man this Spey line is all too complicated, no wonder I was apprehensive dipping my toes in this game LOL.
That is first and foremost among my reasoning in recommending traditional integrated lines to people. Provided that a person purchases the correct grain weight for their rod the rest of setting up is pretty straight forward, put on some backing and spool up the line. By traditional lines I mean those with a vinyl coated runninng / shooting line fused right on the rear of the head.

When you choose to take the component route then things become somewhat more complicated. Some people end up with backing connected to a shooting connected to a head. Therein lies the possible confusion, how much backing and what weight - which shooting line - and of course you make those choices not knowing if the head you bought is the proper weight for the rod or your casting applications. I can't tell a guy what to do, only tell them that I try to keep fishing as simple as possible on the tackle end. It's complicated enough learning how to catch fish using sunken flies, where they are - what will they take - how to get the fly down and so on.
 

fishing hobo

Well-known member
Messages
404
Reaction score
67
I was looking at integrated lines due to its simplicity but the grain weight of the one I looked at were higher for 9/10 Scandis and in fact the 8/9 line was within the lower range of the grain weight of that recommended by the rod manufacturer. Problem is some people have felt that the rod needed a heavier line. I bought a Scandi head which was just above the upper limit of recommended, as the Skagit line the rod recommended was much greater than Scandi, I reasoned that if very slightly heavy, it may help me as a novice but won't overload the rod too much once I get used to DH casting. I hate the feel of overloaded rods. The mono running line was very cheap anyhow so no damage done if I bought the wrong one.
 

jr spey

Well-known member
Messages
409
Reaction score
32
Location
SE Wisconsin
The only two reasons I can think of for using a light (ie. 30#) mono running line is if you're fishing a 3-4 weight trout spey setup or if you're trying to squeeze a few extra feet of casting distance out of regular spey and switch setups. Some of the mono running lines made especially for spey, like the OPST, and Rio Quickshooter and/Gripshooter will sometimes work fine at about 35#, but that's because their diameter is larger for the line weight. You want enough diameter to be able to control the line, especially when it's wet (like always) cold and you might have gloves on. When using standard mono meant for gear fishing, like Berkeley World Class, Amnesia, or Ande's, usually 50# is a good compromise.
 

Ard

Forum Member
Staff member
Messages
26,183
Reaction score
16,352
Location
Wasilla / Skwentna, Alaska
Should have mentioned, Guideline LXi 4 piece 9/10 which is a 13ft 9" rod.
Although I'm not familiar with Guideline rods being a 9/10 I'd hazard a guess we're looking at around 750 grains for a line. There are several forums where you may find many people who use this same rod and one is owned by us, that would be; The Salmon Fishing Forum The link should take you to the home page where you can register much the same way you did with us here. A quick scroll through the various sub forums will guide you as to where a thread may draw the best response.

With that said, I would think the minimum head for a rod of this length would be one of the Steve Godshall Super Scandi lines like I use on many of my rods. These have a 45 foot head with moderate tapers and come with 100 feet of the slickest vinyl clad runner I've ever used. If you want Steve's e-mail just send a PM to me. I would be confident that he already knows exactly which weight works best on your rod as they are fairly common in the Pacific Northwest .

If you join the Salmon Fishing Forum please enter my name 'Hardyreels' as your reference and if you have any difficulties with posting you can contact me through that forum also as Hardyreels.

Ard
 

fishing hobo

Well-known member
Messages
404
Reaction score
67
Thank you Ard,

Off the top of my head the reference grain range is 525 ~ 575 grains for a scandi.

I'll look up the Salmon forum.

As for the 30lbs mono, the shop that sold me the line said it is not an issue, still I feel a little undergunned with it though.
 

fishing hobo

Well-known member
Messages
404
Reaction score
67
The only two reasons I can think of for using a light (ie. 30#) mono running line is if you're fishing a 3-4 weight trout spey setup or if you're trying to squeeze a few extra feet of casting distance out of regular spey and switch setups. Some of the mono running lines made especially for spey, like the OPST, and Rio Quickshooter and/Gripshooter will sometimes work fine at about 35#, but that's because their diameter is larger for the line weight. You want enough diameter to be able to control the line, especially when it's wet (like always) cold and you might have gloves on. When using standard mono meant for gear fishing, like Berkeley World Class, Amnesia, or Ande's, usually 50# is a good compromise.
Won't be fishing in really cold weather, I get vasospasms in my hands and feet so no chance there.
 

Ard

Forum Member
Staff member
Messages
26,183
Reaction score
16,352
Location
Wasilla / Skwentna, Alaska
Thank you Ard,

Off the top of my head the reference grain range is 525 ~ 575 grains for a scandi.

I'll look up the Salmon forum.

As for the 30lbs mono, the shop that sold me the line said it is not an issue, still I feel a little undergunned with it though.
The rod surprises me then, I use a Sage One 31'6" rated as an 8 weight a lot, the rod casts like a dream with a 600 grain line. I also have a 15 foot Winston 7/8 - a Hardy Marksman 2T and a 14' Sage X that all use a 600 grain line like I described. When I say that the rod surprised me that's because being rated 9/10 and calling for a top end lighter than my 8 weights use seems strange.

If you get everything all set up then find that there seems to be something radically wrong when you get to casting I'd look straight to that grain weight. A quick e-mail to Steve G. would clear up any question on weight.
 

fishing hobo

Well-known member
Messages
404
Reaction score
67
The rod surprises me then, I use a Sage One 31'6" rated as an 8 weight a lot, the rod casts like a dream with a 600 grain line. I also have a 15 foot Winston 7/8 - a Hardy Marksman 2T and a 14' Sage X that all use a 600 grain line like I described. When I say that the rod surprised me that's because being rated 9/10 and calling for a top end lighter than my 8 weights use seems strange.

If you get everything all set up then find that there seems to be something radically wrong when you get to casting I'd look straight to that grain weight. A quick e-mail to Steve G. would clear up any question on weight.
Interesting Ard, when I looked at the equivalent grain weight for likes of Snowbee, Hardy etc 8/9 seems to be in the range for my rod but I think it is in the lower range if I use 8/9 wt line. As a beginner I didn't think I would be able to cast well with the lighter end of the range 9/10 is much heavier if I chose Snowbee or Hardy. Hence I bought the marginally heavier UST from SA which is 585 grains which is 9/10.
 

flav

Well-known member
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
1,889
Location
oregon
I think you have a good weight line scandi head for that rod. When I look at the Rio spey line chart you're right in the range for scandi heads for all the Guideline 9/10 rods, and I've always found those numbers to be pretty spot on. I think Ard is talking about the head weight for the longer heads he normally fishes which weigh significantly more than a corresponding scandi head for the same rod.
 

fishing hobo

Well-known member
Messages
404
Reaction score
67
I think you have a good weight line scandi head for that rod. When I look at the Rio spey line chart you're right in the range for scandi heads for all the Guideline 9/10 rods, and I've always found those numbers to be pretty spot on. I think Ard is talking about the head weight for the longer heads he normally fishes which weigh significantly more than a corresponding scandi head for the same rod.
Ahh, great info there flav :thumbsup: So it would appear that the more experienced casters would go 8/9 and those less experienced or want more feel would go 9/10 Scandis. So now that is out the way, I need more info on the running line. Reading the Salmon Fishing Forum, I think it appears that I needed the 50lbs Mono rather than the 30lbs..... I also have a coated running line on the way.
 
Top