I'm new at building flyrods and am considering buying either a Loomis GL3 or a St. Croix SC 3 in a 9ft, 2 piece, 6 wt. Can anyone tell me if these rods would feel the same if they were built identical to each other? I know Shimano owns Loomis now, so are Loomis rods still built under the same specifications as the original owners? I have yet to go out and fish with a flyrod, but have taken a few casting classes and recently joined a flyfishing club, so my knowledge on flyrods are limited. I've been building and fishing saltwater rods for a long time and know how to build rods, but not much about flyrods. I purchased two Loomis GL 4, 2pc, 8 and a 5 wt. many moons ago intending to build but never have. Can you tell me if these rods are the same as the Loomis IMX or are they a grade below it? Sorry for the long post, but any information will be appreciated. Thanks

When G Loomis changed the blank designs on the IMX line they also changed the name. They didn't do a very good job of marketing the change, few of their dealers for instance seem to know what was going on. A short time later they went back to the IMX title. I've fished quite a few GL4s if you still have them, save your money and build them up, they are nice blanks.

Another thought...I have a good customer that just sold his last two Loomis steelhead rods. He now uses Rainshadow RX7's and loves them. Strange guy though, I build him casting rods on a 3wt fly blank and he uses them for Red's on the Texas coast. Different strokes.

Howard,

There is a link on this site for "Common Cents Info" and "Common Cents Data". It is a lot of information to digest, but if you spend a little time studying that stuff, it will help you answer questions like the one you are posing.

The idea behind that system (and I'm sure someone will follow up with a better explanation) is that any given blank will have an inherent power and flex (also called action) -- and those characteristics can by systematically measured to reveal the behavior in a blank that can be compared to other blanks. It works with finished rods as well.

When I looked at the data for the two models you are comparing, it looks like the Loomis blank has an "Effective Rod Number" of about 6.2 (meaning a true 6 wt. line will do a good job of loading the rod), while the SC III is around 7 (meaning it will not load up as much with the same 6 wt. line). Both rods had an "action angle" of 66 degrees, which means they have similar actions -- they bend into about the same shape when each is fully loaded.

So, it sounds like the SCIII rod will probably take more mass to load it than the GL3. The GL3 should load up very nicely with 6 wt line, and the SCIII might (I don't think I would notice this subtle difference) be whippier with the same 6wt line, as it wouldn't fully load before you shot. Conversely, some casters may find the GL3 to be slower than the SCIII. Again, these are fairly subtle differences, so it might be hard to tell unless you were very familiar with both rods. (Which I am, unfortunately, not. I do have a 6' 3wt SCIII, and it seems to be pretty fast, but I think it's probably not as stiff as the heavier rods would be.)

Keep in mind there is some variation in the actual weights of lines, so that some 6wt line will be lighter than others, which could effect the feel of the rods. The relative behavior of the rods should be the same, though, if you are using the same line in each.

Anybody want to expand on this? It's a good "real life" application of the Hanneman system. For example, would the rod with the higher ERN be more likely to produce a rod better suited for large streamers?

-Rob



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/04/2006 01:08AM by Robert Robertson.

From the CC data the Loomis blank would work better than the St Croix at closer ranges, because it would load better with less line out past the tip. The St Croix would need more line weight past the tip (more line in the air) to load the blank equally. If you need a western style open, unlimited backcast, distance rod this may be it. If you're nymphing, close quaters fishing, maybe using rollcasts to get in some tight spots than the Loomis maybe the better choice. If you need to air a litte more with the Loomis you just drop down a line weight on your line, if you need to get a little closer control with the St Croix go up one line weight on the line. The good thing is both should be fairly close to you for test cast in built form.

Croix has put in some of the once higher end innovations like IPC into the SCIII seris this year. This maintains uniform wall thickess at transitional areas like tapers which used to be accomplished via thicker walls. You used to have to buy SCIV or better rods to get IPC tapers...and they also are using a 90 degree extra hoop wrap at ferrules which Fenwick used to do through out the length of their blanks, so in effect they have added weight in some transitional areas where they once sought to save weight. I'd compare blank weights and butt and tip dia to see what sort of taper and corresponding weight is accounting for the slightly extra stiffness in the SCIII' over the Loomis GL3, if the SCIII turns out to be lighter yet stiffer; then all these lil innovations amount to something if they will now pass the pending acid test of time. SCII 3F906.2 .405" butt 4.5 tip 2.1oz I don't have the specs on Loomis, but the IMX's impressed me the GL3 hasn't changed much and is just above their entry level blanks. The SCIII's cost more this year as they have gotten rid of the redundant Pro Graphite rod series in recent years. (The Imperial was the same blank in a differnt color with better hardware guides and a tube) So The SCIII was always the next step up from entry level they just made it hard to figure that out, but with the new higher end innovations it might be the better choice if you like a slightly crisper blank (which might weigh less also) than the old GL3 standard. Also Croix has upped their return shippping fee for returned rods from $10 to $20 bucks