Everybody seems to love the FTs. Dan Craft seems to recommend them more than any other of his blanks. I admit I just like the sound of the SigV (perhaps reminds me of my Perigee 2pc 5/6wt; or perhaps because I'm a poor caster and the FT is so fast). When would you just really opt for the SigV?

My 8'4 4 wt Sig V is the cat's pajamas. I can't imagine a better trout rod. Well...I can imagine one...I just haven't cast it yet. I haven't cast the FT in the light wts, though.

But I do like my 7 wt FT (9 ft) more than I did my 7 wt (10 ft) Sig V. Seems to be a better fit for me...

So my limited experience would say "go for the Sig V's in the lighter weights and the FT in the higher weights.

just 2 cents...

Keith

I have three SigV 9ft 5wts, 2 built with the standard tip and one built with the tip "stolen" from a 8'9" 4 wt. I also have a FT 9ft 5wt. Here are my observations:

The SigV is my primary fly rod. 75% of my fishing is dry fly fishing at about 60ft or so, which is standard on my home waters, the Upper Delaware River in NY/PA. I think this rod is a great blend of power and sensitivity. I can throw the whole line if I want to, but can also fish small dries at short to medium range without a problem. It protects tippet reasonably well. I have fished underneath fairly aggressively with this rod as well. It has been spawner fishing on the Madison River in Yellowstone for the past 4 years. I took it steelheading on the Great Lakes tributaries for 8-12 lb fish with no problems.

The FT is also a nice rod, but I find it less delicate when presenting dry flies. It can throw a line a country mile, and I generally use this rod on the Lower Delaware from striper fishing with 2/0 deceivers and the like. It tends to be pretty fast action with a soft tip, and requires a pretty heavy line like the Rio Grande or overlined to a 6 wt. With respect to "feel" the Ft is a bit heavier and more "disconnected" feeling to me compared to the Sig V.

Hope that helps.

Mark Li

I also own a Sig V 8'4" 4 wt and I love it. The Sig V is lighter, and a more moderate action than the FT's. I think it works wonderfully with lighter tippets, but can still fire the line out there. From my experience, the FT's are a little less optimal for finesse type fishing. I would second Keith's recommendation of the Sig V for lighter weights, and the FT in the heavier.

I'm thinking about a 9ft 9wt option if that sheds light - bass, salt, etc.

Mark described the FT well...fast action...but soft tip. I'ld echo that.

9 ft 9 wt.....I'ld go with the FT.

My 2 cents...again..

Keith

I had a 9' 10wt V for a while that was an absolute cannon. In my hands, it cast further than the FT of the same weight and length.

Scott Kinney
The Longest Cast Fly Rods
[www.thelongestcast.com]

I too have a 9 ft 10 wt Sig V, If there is a lighter ,nicer 10 wt, I haven't fished it. Love my 10 ft 7wt also. Both cannons when they have to be, but will throw anywhwere you need them to. I've built a few FTs including one 8 wt in a travel casting drift rod. They are heavier and can throw more varieties of lines, weights and shooting head systems.

Hi.

I've got Sig V 905-3 and FT 905-4.

The Sig V is medium/medium fast and a bit on the stiff side. Nowhere near a broomstick. The recovery is fast. This is my primary rod. Casts perfectly from 0 to 100ft. Quite an easy rod with great feel. If this was a car it could be a Porche 911.

The FT is superfast and overall stiff very (except for the limber tip that makes this superfast action). The recovery is lightning fast with a #5 line. The rod is a demanding one. There is very distinctive feel in this rod, but I'd guess it doesn't open up for everyone. As a car this is perhaps a Formula 1.

Cheers,
Sakari

I have the 7 and 10 wt FT, I also have a 5wt and the famous 8'4" 4 wt in a Sig V. I love em all but the 8'4 is da bomb! I use my FT's for shooting heads which I fish very often. If I was looking for a rod to mostly cast floating lines I would buy the Sig V every time.