If strictly targeting panfish, I'd select the 2 weight.

More fun and will still throw everything you'd need to target panfish & creek critters.

 

That being said, good luck finding a new one under a few hundred bucks. There are some Chinese options out there that would probably fit the bill. Ebay.

 

In honor of the newest member here on OGF's fly forum, Jimijaz?

http://flyfishohio.com/2-Weight_Shoot-Out/2-Weight_Shoot-Out.htm

 

Hey, something in my wheelhouse on the first day! Thanks for the heads up Fallen.

If someone was asking me about 2 vs 3 wt, My first answer is: most 2 weights comfortably cast a 3 wt line. In our shootout, only about a third of the rods tested were true 2 wt's. The rest were only labeled so and were serviceable 3 and sometimes 4 wts. One big consideration is the size fly your presenting. Bream require anything from a size 18 nymph up to a size 6 popper. Personally, I'd get into a rod that could handle a range of lines, instead of something dedicated to a single line wt. The true 2 wts we tested seemed to only be useful as ultra subtle, dry-fly sticks for cramped quarters.

If you're only using it for panfish, think about something in a 7' plus range. Depending on whether you're bank fishing or in/on the water, go for something that will comfortably handle up to a size 8 or 6 popper, when up-lined. You need to be aware that you may hook something bigger than a bluegill and have to either let it go or land it. Hooking a 15" largemouth on the diminutive Hardy 'Aln' fiberglass rod was truly one of the scarier moments I've had fishing. That poor little rod was bent into a 'C'. I'm glad it broke me off.
-Hope this helps,
-Jim

 

Just a suggestion, I've been using the Lacrosse Montana 2wt this entire year, and it's been a total pleasure to cast and fish with. I use it primarily for panfish and some bass fishing - largest on it so far was 17", and it handled nicely. It took a while to play the fish in, but it was a blast.

http://lacrossecustomrods.com/montanaweb.htm

 

If someone was asking me about 2 vs 3 wt, My first answer is: most 2 weights comfortably cast a 3 wt line. In our shootout, only about a third of the rods tested were true 2 wt's. The rest were only labeled so and were serviceable 3 and sometimes 4 wts. One big consideration is the size fly your presenting. Bream require anything from a size 18 nymph up to a size 6 popper. Personally, I'd get into a rod that could handle a range of lines, instead of something dedicated to a single line wt. The true 2 wts we tested seemed to only be useful as ultra subtle, dry-fly sticks for cramped quarters.

I guess I'm hijacking the thread here--sorry. Jim, I'm curious what your definition of "true 2 wt" is, since all rods can handle a range of line weights and tapers. This is part of an ongoing discussion in the broader flyfishing community about how to best categorize rods in a market where no two rods of a given weight are alike. Or perhaps better said, where such enormous differences exist within a rod-line weight rating.

But regarding the quote above, an important but missing factor is the amount of line one plans to aerialize during the cast, since the actual weight of the line in motion is the main factor in loading the rod. I'm not in love with the AFTMA system, but it is based on the first 30' of line, not counting any level tip. Point is, a 2 wt could handle a 4 or 5 wt line, for example, provided you cast with less of it outside the rod tip. Analogously, a spinning rod can cast a range of lure weights/sizes (and I credit them with listing "ranges" on the rod rather than a single weight, though often inconsistent or inaccurate), and going beyond that range just means a loss of maximum casting distance. When distance and shooting with a fly line are a concern, there are obviously more factors involved, which I am not going into here, but these should not matter much in typical fishing situations with a 2 wt.

So when you say "true 2 wt," do you mean that its ideal feel (rod loading under control) is with 30' + level tip outside the rod? Seems like a lot, especially since the FFO 2wt shootout listed many rods as maxing out around the 40' mark.

 

I believe a system was in place to determine what rating a rod flexed at under a certain load?

 

Hey, something in my wheelhouse on the first day! Thanks for the heads up Fallen.

If someone was asking me about 2 vs 3 wt, My first answer is: most 2 weights comfortably cast a 3 wt line. In our shootout, only about a third of the rods tested were true 2 wt's. The rest were only labeled so and were serviceable 3 and sometimes 4 wts. One big consideration is the size fly your presenting. Bream require anything from a size 18 nymph up to a size 6 popper. Personally, I'd get into a rod that could handle a range of lines, instead of something dedicated to a single line wt. The true 2 wts we tested seemed to only be useful as ultra subtle, dry-fly sticks for cramped quarters.

-Jim

interesting. this seems to be the going rate. its been long expected one very popular maker mislabels their rods on purpose to give the impression the rods cast better than they should.

I guess Trout Underground said it best, "there are 3 line weights in flyfishing, too light, too heavy and just right".

the more recent invention of all these different line weights and weight specific rods is a sales gimmick in my opinion. meant to keep people buying new rods.

 

No apologies required to me. It's not my thread to hijack,

I'm just not going to get into the vagaries of AFTMA's weighting system. Don't have a dog in that fight. It is what it is and at least we have something to measure rods by.

We put up all our methodology at the beginning of the review. Four dudes with four different opinions. We also had one of our guys apply the 'Common Cents' system to measure the rods action. As I recall, he tested each rod 2 or 3 times to get some measure of repeatable data. I collected the review paperwork but never looked at it till I handed it off to our editor, Joe Cornwall (Cornmuse on the forum). The first time I ever saw them was for proofing just prior to publishing.

My idea of a 'true' 2 wt is one where it will only comfortably cast a 2 weight line 30-40 feet. Some of these rods weren't loading till there was 60' of 2wt line out. Definitely a candidate for uplining. Our casting distance quotes were estimates based on how much line was tossed out of the rod. When I put a 3 wt line on a given rod and it folds up on me, in my humble opinion, it's a true 2 wt and it's incapable of being uplined. In my personal Goldilocks equation, thats just right. Keep in mind, this is all subjective opinion and I'd much rather be out fishing than talking (or writing) about it.

FWIW, I'm a huge fan of uplining. I own quite a few rods from the 60's and 70's (mostly Fenwicks) that actually publish multiple line weights on the rod. I'll usually use the lighter line weight to cast dries and the heavier one to throw heavier streamers.
-God bless Russ Peak,
-Jim

 

I love uplining and downlining.

My Scott G series rods are phantastic for just that. I can fish my 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 weight rods with 2 reels, one spooled with 7 weight & one spooled with a 10 weight muskie taper. The 7 weight line is good on the 6,7, & 8 and I can fish the 10 weight line on the 8, 9 or 10 with ease.

The weight of the line dictates the size of fly I throw...and the weight of the rod determines how far I can throw it.


I will say my favorite combinations are the 7 weight line on the 6 weight rod and the 10 weight line on the 9 weight rod.





I would choose my rod based on the review linked above. It tells you which rods are what specific action, which to me is the most important thing. I like a slower rod & so if I was buying a 2 weight, I'd want it to bend like a rubberband and load properly with a true 2 weight fly line.

 

FWIW, I'm a huge fan of uplining. I own quite a few rods from the 60's and 70's (mostly Fenwicks) that actually publish multiple line weights on the rod. I'll usually use the lighter line weight to cast dries and the heavier one to throw heavier streamers.
-God bless Russ Peak,
-Jim

Ahhh... a fellow fiberglass caster. Waiting for my 4wt Steffan rod !! That one took a huge amount of convincing to the wife (Most expensive rod I ever and probably will ever spend - Fenwicks are in my cross hairs too! )

Sorry, and now back to our regularly scheduled program.

I would go with the 3 weight unless you have a 4 weight. The difference between the 2-3 is very marginal since the panfish will still feel like a whale on either the 2 or 3 (which I am guessing is the motivation for getting the 2-3 weight and why I got a fiberglass rod : ) ). The bonus of the 3 weight is, as others have mentioned, the ability to upline or possiblity downline. This versatility is better imho with the 3 weight.

Finally, if you have not already been to the site, check out the ultralight fly fishing forums. An ultralight (3 wt) to me is a 8-10wt for these fellas! A lot of good people and info... http://ultralightflyfishing.yuku.com/

 

I can't believe I spelled fantastic "phantastic". WTH is wrong with me.

 

AAR,
My cohort, Joe C. on FFO has one of the larger collections of fiberglass, 8'-6wts I've ever seen. Lot of love for his McFarland anniversary 3 wt too. McF' knows how to wrap some glass.
FYI, Jeremy at the UL forum, is the fellow who ran our common cents tests and was our fourth reviewer. I'm glad the weather was ok that spring. I flat wore out Sharon Woods lake for a couple months.
Bassarisky, for someone who just wants to dabble, just look at the rods under 200 bucks. You should be able to find something that will fit your personal needs. Figure out how you want to use it and make your purchase accordingly. Keep in mind, faster rods are more forgiving of casting errors. Slower ones are easier on the tippet.
-Jim

 

Back to the original question....I have a 6'6" 2wt & an 8' 3wt. The 3 wt accentuates the fight of an equally sized 'gill better (due to extra length?) even though the 2wt is a softer rod.
If you are looking at reasonably priced, yet nice rods, I love the Echo rods....check out their "Carbon" series.
Mike

 

Back to the original question....I have a 6'6" 2wt & an 8' 3wt. The 3 wt accentuates the fight of an equally sized 'gill better (due to extra length?) even though the 2wt is a softer rod.
Mike

You're right that a longer lever gives the fish an advantage, which can make smaller fish, like the average panfish, more fun. (e.g. 8 ft x 1 lb pulling pressure by fish = 8 ft/lbs, while 6.5 ft x 1lb fish pull = 6.5 ft/lbs)

Jim, wouldn't it be the other way around, where slow/medium action fly rods allow for more timing error? And faster rods have a shorter window for loading and therefore error?

Speaking of fast vs. slow, this is part of where the rod's line rating is made complicated. Is a 2 wt rod that loads with 50-60' of 2 wt line really a 3wt, or is it a super fast 2 wt? Are those the same, or is it a specialized 2 wt?

Seth, I think the rating system you're referring to is the Common Cents System that Jim has mentioned. This system produces an "ERN" figure (number) for each rod based on static deflection. This is not the same as dynamic deflection, which is what occurs when we haul, double haul, and all that when we actually fish a rod...Which sounds good right about now...

 

Seth, I think the rating system you're referring to is the Common Cents System that Jim has mentioned. This system produces an "ERN" figure (number) for each rod based on static deflection. This is not the same as dynamic deflection, which is what occurs when we haul, double haul, and all that when we actually fish a rod...Which sounds good right about now...

The amount of time it takes to load a rod with X amount of weight/line gives you your action... the amount of weight it takes to fully load the rod gives you your rating. There you have it. The true Common Sense System prevails.


I think there's some "simple physics" involved when it comes down to it. Taper of the rod determines where & how the rod flexes under a given load. Depending on what you do with that info, you can find how quickly it loads.


I wouldn't be so quick to call a super fast 2 weight a "true 3 weight" until I compared the same rod company's "true 3 weight". If there's a measurable & consistent difference, it could be said that it is valid and that company just has lightning fast rods. lol.

Now, if they just took their Chinese 3 weight blank and printed 2 weight on it, that's a different story.




Good example of different rod weights from the same company, I have a Scott G series 3 weight & 4 weight. The 3 is 8'8", the 4 is 6' 10". It's nearly half the diameter of the 3 weight also, and bends/loads waaaaaay more even though it's much shorter. It throws a 3 weight line with a slow action. It'd throw a 2 weight in what I would call "normal" fashion. It will also throw a 4 weight in a little slower fashion. Why they chose to call it a 4 instead of a 3, I can only assume is based on math (static deflection) & not observation.

I still trust the static numbers though because they are repeatable without expensive automated rod whipping machines. Ii'd like to think I can determine if a rod is fast or slow & about what weight line it will throw just by whippin' it a couple times myself.

 

Andrew S. pointed out a while back that the increase of force needed to load a rod typically grows on a curve at higher rod weight ratings, so the difference between a 3 & 4 is very trivial where the difference in a 9 & 10 is much greater. This has been my experience as well. You really start feeling a difference between a 6 & 7...and on up. AKA you need to buy a new line to load it properly, vs. using one you already had. hehehe.

 

Good example of different rod weights from the same company, I have a Scott G series 3 weight & 4 weight. The 3 is 8'8", the 4 is 6' 10". It's nearly half the diameter of the 3 weight also, and bends/loads waaaaaay more even though it's much shorter. It throws a 3 weight line with a slow action. It'd throw a 2 weight in what I would call "normal" fashion. It will also throw a 4 weight in a little slower fashion. Why they chose to call it a 4 instead of a 3, I can only assume is based on math (static deflection) & not observation.

I have no idea, of course, how they (or any other company) does it, but my hunch, based on conversations, experience, etc. is that "observation" is probably actually closer to the truth than "based on math". In other words, since there is no standard metric for determining how to "weight" a rod, I really suspect the companies do it in a fairly subjective way.

Although I certainly manage with the current system of line and rod weights, and action descriptions, I personally wish there was in fact a consistent and repeatable system to describe rod behavior. I'm not holding out for it, but to me, the ideal system would be one such that if a company said something like "This rod is our X,Y,Z", where some information replacing each of those letters would tell me how it would behave with lines of a certain grain value, then I would know that if another company said they had an "X,Y,Z" rod, it would behave in exactly (or almost exactly) the same way. And if there was something about the manufacturing process for each of these companies that meant each's rods were not identical in behavior...no problem: just give them different labels (e.g. One company would have X,Y,Z, and the other would have W,Y,Z).

ALthough my understanding is that a lot of people really don't like the Common Cents system, especially when applied to the big rods designed for large files, long casts, etc., the one thing I do like about that system is that they have continuous metrics for different attributes of a rod.

 

Is there a big difference between a 2wt vs. 3wt. fly rod?

..........

No.

 

Thanks fellas for all the recommendations and info. Looks like I'm gonna have to do some reading and research before deciding.

 

Thanks fellas for all the recommendations and info. Looks like I'm gonna have to do some reading and research before deciding.

Don't worry about all that crap I started...if you can find a fly shop or big fishing retailer nearby with a couple 2 and 3 wt rods to test, the best research is casting them yourself. Even better if they have some nimwitted bluegill in the casting pond...

 

very well said, patricio. obviously you are old-school. myself, i choose not to overstress a fish. too light an outfit can do this and since most of my fishing is c&r, i keep this in mind when purchasing all my equipment.

 

If you want the very best advise on ultralight fly rods then you need to go to the proper source. http://ultralightflyfishing.yuku.com/

The boys over there know their stuff and can point you in the right direction.

 

Awesome deal on a TFO finesse series 3wt. Not far from the top of the list:

http://www.farmingtonriver.com/used.htm

 

If you want the very best advise on ultralight fly rods then you need to go to the proper source. http://ultralightflyfishing.yuku.com/

The boys over there know their stuff and can point you in the right direction.

I couldn't agree with this more. That site is awesome, and helped me get my feet wet (pun intended) in the UL fly fishing realm. I'll never turn back. I was lucky enough to get out for a couple hours last night as the temperatures fell and the moon arose.