MickD

Ned is very reliable and versatile, so generally I start with it. If no action, change color. If still no action go with something entirely different, like a crank or Keitech swim bait. I will now and then use wacky if not in depths over 8-10, but generally, if they don't want a Ned, they don't want finesse. At least that's how I see it where I fish.

I've detected a few impending strikes of a surface lure by seeing an approaching wake and also when minnows fly out of the water around a surface lure. That's all I can think of.

I was sort of joking, but with a little "truth." The truth is that if braid is so fragile in fishing environments, why does it take special scissors to cut it? I fish over a lot of rocks and zebra mussels and have not found braid to be a problem. Most of the time it's the leader that comes into contact with the structure. I didn't mean to insult or offend. Sorry if I did.

I keep wondering why, if braid is so easy to be "ripped through," by rocks, why are braid scissors not made out of rocks? Just wondering.

That "new" reel has a lot of scars in addition to the thumb bar. It has taken some major hits, and I don't think the thumb bar would be damaged like that from simply "tipping over." If you didn't do it, someone else certainly did a significant job on it. It's a piece of cake to cobble up very effective "between the joists" rod storing setups that are very stable, so it's easy to prevent the tipping over. But the other, . . . .

I buy all my glasses on line using prescriptions from my doctor and have had no problems. The sunglasses I get are polarized progressives and they work just fine. And cost about 1/3 of what they cost locally. PM me for the source I use.

X-Rays are OK, but so are many other brands and models. Keep in mind there are little to no methods for objectively evaluating rod blanks for sensitivity, so what you will get are opinions only. Very few blank manufacturers publish objective power and action numbers, but Point Blank does, as does Rainshadow for their RX10 top of the line blanks. X-Ray publishes numbers for only a few of their blanks. If you really want an X-Ray, I think they have a fair selection of pre-built rods, so you wouldn't have to go custom if you can find what you want. There are a lot of objective data from builders on X-Ray blanks if you want to look into that. If I had to choose one blank for a spinning setup for finesse, it would be the Point Blank 701MLF, a 7 foot blank that measures about 20 CCS ERN, which many would consider medium power. The only problem with it is that it is pricy, over $150. But it is IMHO the best finesse blank that I have found. If you want to go shorter, their PB692MXF is a beauty at 6 ' 9" and ERN about 22. I have built it as a baitcaster, but it will make a nice shorter spin rod with a little more power than the PB701MLF. If mostly going for other techniques, a power in the range of 22-25 ERN would probably be better. One thing to consider is that as with other products, the additional value in the form of performance is not linear for dollars spent. There are sweet spots where more money doesn't add that much more value, but it adds some. I think the sweet spot for rod blanks is probably with the Rainshadow Revelation series, which goes for a little over $100 for most blanks. Lots of choices. Where you go depends on your budget and priorities.

I don't know. It would change the balance, and if it improves the balance one might conclude sensitivity is improved. But what is the definition of sensitivity? I define it as the ability to feel a bite. Is that yours? Most agree that the higher the power to weight ratio, the higher the sensitivity. Some argue that transmission of vibration through the rod to the grip indicates higher sensitivity, and others contend that is not true. One argument is that the longer the rod, the more sensitive, but without discussing power at the same time, I don't go with that argument. A couple manufacturers say they have a "sensitivometer" device, but they are VERY reluctant to show it or discuss results. Trika is an exception. But their device is a vibration transmission device, and does that indicate sensitivity? True Natural Frequency is an objective measurement that parallels power to weight ratio, and in my experience, "premium" blanks generally have higher TNF than cheaper blanks. But blank design is very important, and to conclude that all premium blanks have higher sensitivity than all cheaper blanks would be a mistake. This issue was discussed for about two years the last time it came up an another rodbuilding forum, and the gaining of consensus was never achieved. Not even close. One thing I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that if one is not using braid they are not experiencing the best sensitivity possible (ability to feel a bite).

Don't forget the tiptop. Titanium vs SS in micro sizes of tiptops makes a significant difference, too. Titanium frame and tube, not talking about titanium plating here.

It is my opinion (only an opinion) that that is one of the reasons why people like micros- I think they cast farther for two reasons. 1. the spiral vs straight issue 2. The rod recovers from deflection (being loaded ) faster with lighter guides. As I said earlier, this is easy to test for and get numbers comparing different guide trains. The test is quite accurate and repeatable. And being lighter than most other guides, the rods built with them feel crisper, cleaner, more like a bare blank than rods built with heavier guides. Of course when the mass differences are minor, the performance differences are minor. And mass near the grip has little or no effect on recovery speed/crispness.

That was my point above. But the image is accurate in its point that with any reasonable line, the knot and not the line will be the issue with micros.

But keep in mind that all rings are not of the same proportions, so stating the ID's of the nominal OD sizes isn't accurate for all micros. But I believe the only way of knowing if your line/knot combination will clear to your satisfaction is to try it out with the micros on your rod. If it doesn't clear correctly then you need to go down on leader or get a better knot. But for most bass fishing, a combination is easily possible for micros down to size 4, probably below. Keep in mind that if there are no knots, any micro of any size will work with any line. Go back in this string and look at Spoonplugger's image.

You show good discretion, something that many these days do not have. Good for you for being good at this. I'm pretty mechanically inclined too, but lack patience, and I consider the risks of going deep to be too high.

There have been over the years a lot of posts from guys who have disassembled their reels and then had trouble. Some just can't leave even a new reel alone. I used to do all my own work on reels but they were much simpler then. Nowadays this is my practice: - Do not disassemble or lube a new reel unless it appears to need it. - Disassemble only the first "layer" or two. When I get to the point where little parts have to come out and possibly not get oriented correctly on reassembly, I don't go that far. - If a reel gets dunked and is in the water for a while, I send it to an expert. A day fishing in the rain requires nothing more than drying out and lubing as above. This practice has worked perfectly for me. I once read a piece of advice written about firearms, and how sometimes people cause more problems than they solve, and it went something like "Don't love your gun to death." Same for fishing reels. I know there are guys who disagree with this practice, and good for them if they can confidently take today's reels down and get them back together right. I am not that good or patient. I'll take that bet. 🙂

SNAGLESS, right? Nothing is as effective AND SNAGLESS as a Johnson silver minnow with a white trailer, something like an old white pork rind. Remember, it's for search, covering a lot of water fast. Some of these solutions being proposed are not even close.

I really don't think with dragging that an 1/8th of an ounce is going even be noticeable. I'm trying to be polite, but this whole this is incredible.

Right, not only technique specific, but species specific. There are some techniques that are best done with certain rods, but most of today's rods are a lot more versatile than many give credit for. Just get a rod that feels good and go fishing.

Exactly! Does anyone actually believe that rod selection is this specific/difficult/challenging?

The longer the rod the more likely it is that an X-fast action will work well for about everything. An X-fast 7-6 is about like having a 6-6 mod-fast with a one foot broomstick extension glued to the butt.

If casting for max distance is a priority then matching the power of the rod to the weight being cast is very important, with the best action probably being moderate-fast. It gets hard to suggest solutions when the original post said the main goal was versatility, and then we start talking about casting for max distance as a goal. If versatility is the most important goal then stay with moderate-fast action, and go as long as is comfortable to try to maximize casting distance with the suggested lure weights in the range of what is most likely to be used.

What does "bomb cast" mean?

You don't have to worry about reels or even lines (within reason) if you use Fuji KLH20-KLH10-KLH5.5M followed by 2 KB's, then KT's to the end. Whatever runner size you want, unlike Microwave where you have no choice. You can get a variety of rings and frame finishes, spacing of the reduction guides using the KR software on the Anglersresource.net site, and they simply work. I don't even test cast any more. Runners are placed with the two line test found at the same site.

The new inserts are better than the older ones because they are harder and last longer without grooving. But they do not affect sensitivity unless they are large and heavy, but modern micros are not. Yes there are carbon fiber guides. They are definitely lighter, but are getting mixed reviews for durability. I have not tried any yet. Probably won't because I think they are ugly.

The biggest gain in sensitivity, in my opinion, was the introduction of braided line. If one is not using braided line he is way down on the sensitivity scale. (If there were to be a sensitivity scale). But yes, I agree, insert material is immaterial. Guide weight is NOT immaterial, especially out away from the butt. If one wants to objectively measure how it affects the rod's recovery from deflection it's pretty easy to run a "True Natural Frequency" evaluation. All it takes is an Android device and a way to solidly mount the butt of the rod. The difference between stainless steel micros and titanium micros is significant.

The line going through micros is not the issue; the issue with micros can be the knot size and clearing it cleanly through the guides. If using leaders over about 15 with braid over about 20 you'll need to learn to tie small knots for braid to leader. That can be handled, so it's not really a con as much as a caution. Because micros have lighter weight, the recovery-from-deflection speed of the rod is less affected than it is with heavier guides. Theoretically, this should lead to longer casts and in my opinion, increased sensitivity. Another factor leading to longer casts in my opinion is that the line is constrained to a much smaller profile as is passes through the air. It's more like a small cylinder passing through the air rather than loops of line passing through the air. Bottom line, micros make a lot of sense for certain applications. I use them on every rod I make and have no rods left that do not have micros. On baitcast I usually use runners of 5.5mm, and on spin, usually 4mm. I do have baitcasters with 4mm micros , and they work just fine. When I first started building I bought a very nice and pricey Loomis spinnerbait blank and made my first casting rod on it. Another builder, mistaking the type of rod I was building, recommended guides much too large, and I didn't know the difference, so built it. Didn't like how it fished, and realizing my error, rebuilt it with what would be called traditionally sized casting rod guides. Still didn't really care for it. Then micros came into popularity, and I rebuilt it with a first guide of 6mm (Fuji RV6, a tall 6mm double foot), and the rest 5.5mm micros. The rod finally felt right.