BFS Blanks

[WC53]

That is why I have been thinking blanks used for walley or salmon steelhead where you are throwing/drifting light baits and have a tip to protect light lines but need backbone due to the current. For years,my favorite inshore rod was an old, handed down, SST cut down to 7-6. Go old school and mix and match parts from the 2 piece rods. Light tip with baby got back. 

Light neds are also pretty much bfs except for the crazy trout magnet crowd  ymmv.  Especially since everyone knows Rooster Tails > trout magnets.

 

It’s all math, at least that is better than spelling;)

 

Edit: I look at bfs simply as light baits with a casting reel. Rod is based on target species. Of late, I am doing more salt marsh fishing than anything. But it’s just like bass in cover.  I tend to look at it through that lens. When looking for bfs for mountain trout, it is much easier finding a blank.

Edited November 16, 2022 by WC53
Clarity

[MickD]

Rod has to be based on the light lures being cast and its loading properly on the cast.  Not on the target species.  IMHO.   It could be that BFS doesn't make sense for bass in cover.  If the line is too weak to keep the bass out of cover, it doesn't matter what rod is used.  

 

I cannot find a fly blank that really makes sense.  I think the 3 and 4 wt blanks available are not powerful enough.  The 5.7 ERA mentioned before cannot be matched in a length that makes sense.

 

Take a serious look at the NFC P710-1.  I think this is the blank referenced by Spoonplugger. 

 

If you go with too much power the rod will feel like a broom stick with really light lures. 

[WRB]

There are lots of spinning rods in light fast to ML fast and XF that would be ideal BFS casting rods.

Pick out Spinning rod that feels right to you and use that blank to make up a BFS rod.

Tom

 

[dave]

Since all fishing do will be for bass,  I am considering this:  REVS62L-SB 

[MickD]

Light and Med Light spinning rods of about 6.5-7 feet in length are not normally in the 5-6 ERN range; they are generally over 10.  Point Blank's 701MLF has an ERN of about 19.  Which makes them too powerful for the ideal BFS application (based on comments that the P700-1 is right for BFS and has an ERN of 5.7)  They most likely will work, but probably are not the ideal solution. 

 

The only spin blanks with 5-6 ERN's are usually the short whippy ultra lights.   And they have sloppy actions with AA's sometimes as low as 30 degrees.  

 

The challenge is to find a blank of about 6.5 - 7 foot length with a moderate to fast action  AND an ERN in the 5-6 range.  Believe it or not, it appears that there are only a couple out there, the P700-1 being one and the APFG710-1, the other.  (both NFC)

[WC53]

@MickD

 

Mick, I was looking at your often recommended PBML. What is power in RAD? I understand IP in grams.

 

Also, looking at the P700, wouldn’t the ERN be closer to 9? Looking at the chart of 177 grams from NFC x 15.4 =2731. I have never looked at ERN before, so maybe have it wrong.

 

Thanks

[MickD]

The Point Blank 701MLF is way overpowered for this application, at ERN 19, not sure what the RAD is but I think it's on the PB web site.  Moot point if it's way too powerful.  Where is your data for the P700 coming from? I cannot find it.  5.7 ERN ("magic rod") is about 110 grams CCS.  177 is almost a 9 ERN CCS.

 

This subject is under discussion on two different building forums, and it's plagued by the use of subjective descriptions, which are a crap shoot.  The fact is that this BFS is a relatively new application and requires, if I understand it correctly, a rod that is about 7 feet long, "low" power, relatively "fast" action compared to the usual short "ultra lights," and there are very few blanks if any that fit.  Trying to find one with the usual subjective descriptors of "drop shot,"  "ultra-light,"  "medium light", etc is just not going to cut it.  While many have reservations with accepting the objective descriptions of CCS, there really is no other way to be confident in finding a blank that satisfies the requirements of this application.  I thought that the P700 was the "magic" blank that worked, and that it had an ERN of 5.7 and an AA of 65, but if that is incorrect, show me the data.  

 

Stick with it, folks, we will get to the right answer.

[WC53]

On the point blanks I was looking at the L and ML and I didn’t know what RAD power was and thought you might and how it compares to IP in grams.

 

the initial brochure NFC sent out on the P700, if memory serves, listed an IP of 177 grams. The link is dead now.  That is why I was asking.  I can go measure mine, but I think that is about right. That is what I get when measuring P700

 

Am I correct on  ERN that you convert grams to grains and then go to the chart?

 
I think the P700 is a nice rod for rainbows and river smallies. If the fish get a bit bigger, then I would want a bit more power which I think would necessitate a faster tip to throw the same weight?  Although, I have an old Falcon lowrider trout that is rated down to a 1/16 and it is quite moderate. For grins, I’ll measure it tomorrow. Many ways to skin the cat.  Falcon Low Rider ultimate trout IP of 398 AA is a bit less than 73. Originally measured as 7’ blank and had to remeasure IP.

 

I agree on the CCS. The IP and AA make sense to me, as a comparative reference. I just have never looked at the ERN or frequency side of that process.

 

Edited November 22, 2022 by WC53
Clarity

[MickD]

23 minutes ago, WC53 said:

Am I correct on  ERN that you convert grams to grains and then go to the chart?

ERN is a derived number, not an exact measure of the weight it takes to deflect a blank/rod.  Best to consider IP, which is in grams the weight it takes to deflect the blank/rod to 1/3 of its length.  But ERN is easier to understand relative to the weight/power of fly rods.  So I talk ERN.  Take your choice.

The universal chart is what you need to convert IP to ERN.   I have it in .pdf which is not allowed on this forum.  So I cannot provide it.   Go here:  https://www.rodbuilding.org/library/nfc_urrs_masterchartv1.0.pdf

34 minutes ago, WC53 said:

or frequency side of that process.

CCS is a static test, frequency (TNF) is a dynamic test, two totally separate measurements of blank/rod performance.  CCS is about power and action, TNF is about recovery speed/sensitivity.  

[spoonplugger1]

WC53,

You keep talking about more power to do something, I think you are missing the point. BFS is a specific technique, you get out of the realm and description of the technique, and it is no longer BFS. A 5 - 6 lb. trout has never been outside the realm of rods of this power, I have caught many trout and char to 30 inches in Alaska on this power rod, a bass would be no different. Many fly anglers are catching big bass on little flies and little fly rods much lighter than what we are describing here and have done for decades. Sub-0 to 3 wt. rods. Power isn't necessarily needed to get the job done, the very reason for BFS, the challenge. A heavier rod would just be finesse, or heavier and nothing new to talk about. Take a look at the light line world records, 1980's were a time of high-tension light line fishing and the rods were all customs, and all done with less knowledge, materials and variety then found today, this is nothing new, been there done that.

[WC53]

Thanks Spencer,

I have been going lighter tackle in recent years. I enjoy shallow negative low tide winter redfish in the creeks tossing light hardbaits, Z-Mann trd’s and hair jigs on 1/16 or maybe 1/8. The heaviest things I cast are 4.5 grams. I typically take a flyrod and a light casting or spinning blank. Just haven’t found a blank I love. I prefer casting and fly.

BFS to me is the weight of the lures cast and then apply that towards the target species. I catch redfish and mountain trout on the same small hardbaits, same casting reel with 8lb braid, just different rods.  Bait finesse vs bass finesse?

 

I have always used my LM bass and redfish gear in similar manners, so equate them fairly equally. So if someone mention largemouths as a possibility, I think heavier due to larger fish and grass/pads.  I have really good largemouth and redfish opportunities in my area. I travel for the others.

 

The bfs rod for trout and small river/creek smallies is easier. I have the P700 and a UL trout/panfish St Croix blank I like a lot.  There are lots of nice UL blanks.  The P700 handles its upper range better than the lower due its tip action. Ymmv. I have caught flounder and small reds on the P700.  

 

I agree it is nothing knew. I expected someone to just say, hey use this blank.   

 

Thanks for your input.

 

 

 

[dave]

Pouring over these pages (boy am I getting an education...) and other places on the web,  like MickD mentioned, 7' seems the norm for BFS rods.  I like WC53's analogy between Bait Finesse and Bass Finesse. I also liked MickD's suggesting to stick with it and an answer will come...

[dv616]

I built a Liberty DS760 into a “BFS” rod.  It is higher powered than my P700 X-ray (which comes out of the drying box today).  For the DS760, I used a Daiwa Tatula Type R with a ray’s longcast spool.  It is between a BFS and traditional spool in depth.  I was getting around 100’ casts with a 1/10 jig head and 2.8-3” swimbait.  FWIW, total weight of the it head and bait is 1/4 oz.  

 

For the P700, I do not have a reel for that one yet, so may not get to test it until spring (lakes getting close to freezing).  

[dave]

How long is your rod? (no matter how I phrase that,  it just doesn't sound right)

[dv616]

The liberty ds760 is 7’6”, the p700 is 7’.

 

[spoonplugger1]

Dropshot rods 7 1/2 ft. long are nothing new, I built my first on the Lamiglas XMG 50 LSJ 901 well over a decade ago and I certainly was not the first. I still have one of those blanks if the rod ever fails. Large diameter thin wall blank, maybe 25% larger in diameter to my RX8+ dropshot rod and lighter in weight.

[Bass Junke]

So I received some spending points from the company I work for. What did I do? I bought a Curado BFS reel. 

So I am looking at the Rainshadow Immortal blank IMMC73ML-TC. I believe it is the only casting blank Raishadow offers with this kind of rating. 3/16-5/8 fast action 8-17lb line. Now I understand this isn't as BFS as some of you folks are talking but this about as BFS as I need. I bought a digital kitchen scale and have been weighing rigs. I rarely throw anything under a 1/4oz. 1/16oz ned head and a TRD you are almost there, a 1/8oz ned head and a TRD and you are over. 

Just looking to drop one spinning combo. I will still carry one for the few times I go really light. 

[casts_by_fly]

1 hour ago, Bass Junke said:

So I received some spending points from the company I work for. What did I do? I bought a Curado BFS reel. 

So I am looking at the Rainshadow Immortal blank IMMC73ML-TC. I believe it is the only casting blank Raishadow offers with this kind of rating. 3/16-5/8 fast action 8-17lb line. Now I understand this isn't as BFS as some of you folks are talking but this about as BFS as I need. I bought a digital kitchen scale and have been weighing rigs. I rarely throw anything under a 1/4oz. 1/16oz ned head and a TRD you are almost there, a 1/8oz ned head and a TRD and you are over. 

Just looking to drop one spinning combo. I will still carry one for the few times I go really light. 

 

I would say you want a lighter rod.  I have a lamiglas 1/8-1/2 rated rod that I set up to do the same things.  Overhead casting is alright with a 1/15 and TRD.  Pitching is okay.  Sidearm/roll is a little tougher.  I wish I had a 1/16 rated rod for that.  With a 3/16 bottom end (if that's the true bottom end) you're going to be right on the limits all of the time and wishing you had a little lighter.

[uno]

I've built on the Immortal ML casting blank. It's way too stout for BFS. In my opinion it would be called at least a medium power rod in any other lineup. I think the CCS power is around 600 grams and what I would use for BFS would be around 300 grams  (typical medium light spinning).

[MickD]

The IMMWS72ML is around 325 g, 13 ERN, I believe, and would make a good BFS blank.  The trouble with going lighter is that you'll have trouble handling good-sized fish-it won't have enough power.  I use that blank built as a spin for Ned rigs.  I'll check my data later to be sure I'm remembering the numbers right.  

 

Don't worry about using blanks called "spin."  Blanks are blanks and what matters are the power and action NUMBERS.  Subjective descriptors are a crap shoot.

[MickD]

I remembered incorrectly.  I have 8.9 ERN, 175 grams for the IMMWS72ML blank.  Another builder has it at 9.49 ERN-185 grams, which seems more likely to me.  It will probably cast the light stuff well, and I have handled some pretty nice smallies on it.  I put my Tatula SV 103 on it to check it for a friend who is building a BFS, and it did cast a 1/8 Ned jig + a Ned pretty well.  He is building on that blank, but is not yet done with it.  It's called a fast action, but it measures 65 degrees AA, which I would call moderate.  

[Bass Junke]

So I ended up taking advantage of the sale going on at the NFC website. I bought the SJ704-1(im), 7', 1/8-3/8oz 6-12lb line. The website lists it as a mh?? I'm banking on the lure and line ratings being relatively accurate.

 

[MickD]

2 hours ago, Bass Junke said:

So I ended up taking advantage of the sale going on at the NFC website. I bought the SJ704-1(im), 7', 1/8-3/8oz 6-12lb line. The website lists it as a mh?? I'm banking on the lure and line ratings being relatively accurate.

 

Unless you can find someone to provide the  CCS numbers you have no confidence in the power of the blank.  A friend just built one with the Rainshadow below and it works fine with Neds.  I think for BFS the longer blanks will work a little better than the shorter ones.  The issue is that you are between a rock and a hard place.  You want low enough power to nicely cast the light lures, but you want adequate power to handle decent fish.  This blank does that pretty well.  This blank is more like what most would call a moderate or mod/fast action.  

IMMWS72ML-TC Shad Raps / Lindy Rigging / Jigs / Slip Bobbers

7'2"

6-12lb.

1/8-3/8oz.

1

0.422

4.0

Fast

1.6oz.

ML

[spoonplugger1]

I guess fishing all over the US and other places in the world for all species makes me think a little differently, and an experiment or two have been done by me and others to back up what I see and hear. Many bass anglers have always said they need rods of a certain power to fish a certain place, well myself and others have disagreed more than once, proper presentation, yes, the rest not so much. Fish have mass and muscle energy but they are neutrally buoyant in the water, if not they would sink like a rock to the bottom. A certain amount of energy to fight the fish makes no difference how long, or how powerful the rod is if it isn't breaking something, 5 lbs. force from a MH is the same if it's a ML, or BFS. The blank power mentioned above for that ML blank, ERN 13, is the same ERN as found in a medium power 8 to 12 lb. line steelhead rod, a rod that I saw handle a 125 lb. Salmon Shark off of Sitka, AK. some 20 years ago.