I am looking for 9', 5 weight travel blanks for my sons. I am considering the St. Croix SC3, Hook & Hackle IM6, and the Dan Craft Signature III blanks. All are similar in price, and and appear to be close in action. I would like the action to be on the faster side. Any experience in comparing these blanks?

Any input would help.

Thanks

I think the Dan Craft would be the lightest and the fastest. Faster still would be the Dan Craft FT blanks, but they would also be heavier. Dollar for dollar you can't beat the Dan Craft blanks in my opinion in any category.

I think the Dan Craft would be the lightest and the fastest. Faster still would be the Dan Craft FT blanks, but they would also be heavier. Dollar for dollar you can't beat the Dan Craft blanks in my opinion in any category.

Hi Al! Spencer's right about the Sig III being both the lightest and fastest (in terms of Action Angle)...and that they're tough to beat! I recently cc'd a bunch of the Sig III's and most were around 70. They are a very smooth-casting, lightweight blank that leaves a smile on the face both after the invoice and the fishing! :)

The Sig III's are also a "step up" in modulus than IM-6, and the difference combined with Dan's taper is IMO both noticeable and desireable.

We've got a number of the Sig III's (and all Dan's other lines) in stock in our US distribution center if you'd like to try them out.

Warmly,

John,
You could be a great guy and post some of the Sig III results on the CCS site. It is sorely lacking information for that blank. Just a thought!.
Stan

Stan Grace
Helena, MT
"Our best is none too good"

Spencer,

Can you confirm that the FTs are indeed heavier than the Sig IIIs? A bit surprised as the FTs are higher modulus. Are the Sig III smack between the V and FT series, or is their weight closer to one of the two?

Since the IIIs are lighter, I wonder if they recover quicker than the FT also.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Mo

Mo--the Sig III's are definitely lighter...probably closer to the V's but not as quite as light. The FT's are higher mod, but the scrim and wall thickness push the weight up. I don't have the CCF, but there's no question in my mind that the III's do recover more quickly than the 9' FT's. Personally, I think the Sig III's are some of the nicest blanks out there--incredible all-round performers. They just get overshadowed by the spectacular Sig V and the powerhouse FT!

That's the problem with Dan's blanks.3 phenominal choices that are all around the same price.It makes it awfully tough to decide between them.

Mo,
I'd say the FT blanks are at least 50% heavier than a Sig V blank , they were built to be a power blank and are tough, the wall thickness of the one's I have at the butt was way heavier than the Sig V or III blanks. Dan has built salmon/steelhead drift rods out of them and says he'll waranty them. Not many will warranty a fly blank as a casting or spinning rod.

the sig III has become my go to rod when i can comfortably fish a 9'. i have the 9' 4wt, the 8' two wt and the 6'10" 1 wt. the finish is outstanding and the casting performance is absolutely great. you will not regret the choice. the 9' 5piece makes a great travel blank.

Greetings to all,

THANKS for the many responses to my query. Ask a question, gone for a day, come back with great answers. I'm truly grateful to this community on rodbuilding.

Wow, you guys have really made the choice MUCH tougher now that I'll be adding the IIIs to the mix.

As to weight, interestingly with the 8'6" FT 3 wt, the total weight is 1.6 oz but when I drop the butt piece, the remaining 3 pieces weights ONLY 0.7 ounces and should make a great UL rod t 6' 4". A bit more power than a true gossamer UL actually - and yet at 0.7 oz for 6'4", it is lighter than ANY other UL blanks I've found for spinning of that length. And this is a packable 3 pieces too. I'm not sure what gives here as the FT is supposedly heavier, but these three piece section actually seems super light. I wonder if I'll find that the 3rd piece where I attach my handle will end up being a bit too flexible. Doesn't seem so currently as it is stiffer than my regular UL rod.

I do know that based on your posts, my next rods after this will be a Sig V and possibly a Sig III too.

THANKS again.

Mo

Stan--I only had data nearby on 4 of the Sig III's--I submitted them to Bob tonight along with a whack of other DC blanks and I'll post them here as well.

FRSIII61013...ERN 1.60, AA 65
FRSIII7012...ERN 3.12, AA 71
FRSIII7012...ERN 2.97, AA 70.5
FRSIII8022...ERN 3.27, AA 71
FRSIII8022...ERN 3.27, AA 74
FRSIII9045...ERN 7.28, AA 71

Sorry I don't have more right now, but I'll try and get to a few different models shortly.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/30/2005 03:02AM by John Launstein.

Thanks John! The CCS site provided by Bob Hessor will be of even more value with this addition. I hope that folks won't forget to add their data as it is accumulated. What is now a valueable data site could be a treasure
chest to rod buiders as more information is added.

Stan Grace
Helena, MT
"Our best is none too good"