How much difference do you see between these two different series when comparing blanks rated similarly, say SJ783 vs. MB783?

I am looking to build a general purpose bass casting rod to throw jigs and Texas rigs of about 3/8 oz, spinnerbaits, and topwaters.

Thanks
Mike

To throw jigs and Texas rigs, I could see using the same rod, but for myself, I would be having possibly 2 different rods for spinnerbaits and top water. I think you are trying to get too much out of one rod personally. Usually the mag bass blank has a much greater taper to the blank than the spin jig blank. If I had to choose one for all those situations, it would probably be the spin jig blank.

In very general terms the spin jigs are a little slower actioned and a bit lighter powered.

... and the mag bass blank is generally heavier in weight.

Putter
Williston, ND

........ unless you are upgrading blank materials - say to XMG from IMC if you are playing in the Lamiglas grass -

I like to think the MBs have a bit more backbone due to the taper but, from brand to brand that may not be true.


Im very surprised that I have never seen this referenced here, have a look at this rod database it tells you a whole lot about a blank and helps you compare blanks in seconds. Power Efficiency is the key here to see which is going to feel light but yet be powerful for its weight.


Link:


[www.roddatabase.com]

Henry; The only reason you have not seen this referenced here is that you have not read enough posts it has been refered to many times

Henry,
Define "power efficiency", "tip angle", "g/100".
Without understanding those terms that chart is just greek to me.
How do those measurements compare to the CCS?

Raymond Adams
Eventually, all things merge, and a river runs through it..

Interesting site, but............. What do the terms mean?? There is no information saying what the numbers mean, how they are arrived at! Nice database but not a word of explanation or information about the rating system. Who is doing the testing and how??? There is no way for people to submit info nor do they explain how to test a blank. Might be good info IFthere was a way to evaluate it!

The CCS and URRS appear to be much more reliable and universal.

Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2007 03:18PM by Mike Barkley.

If you want to know more about that website, post a question on the Bass Fishing Homepage, rod and reels section. Look for MarkG(ibson) among others to respond. It is similar to CCS, with tip angle and loading the rod to 1/3 deflection. Instead of measuring in # of pennies, the weight is grams. Grams/100 gives a nice number to use as a power rating. The main difference is the length of the rod used for the measurement is based on from the handle forward, since on the shorter rods the bass guys feel that slower action rods tended to still be rated as fast using the standard CCS protocol. Power efficiency is something like the weight to deflect the rod divided by weight of the blank.

I am not connected to the site at all, but that the info. I have off the top of my head. There system seems to work well with bass rods. FWIW

Question,

If the data is based on handle length, it seems like the info provided for blanks is for a specific handle length. If you use a different length handle than used for the data, the figures wouldn't be relevant

Mike (Southgate, MI)
If I don't want to, I don't have to and nobody can make me (except my wife) cuz I'm RETIRED!!

It still is helpful though, since most handle lengths are very close to the same length on casting and spinning rods, factoring in a 10 inch handle makes a much bigger difference than whether the handle is 11 or 9 inches on another rod. The main thing is the it corrects for what they perceived to be an inaccurate angle measurement that seemed to skew the numbers enough that the Loomis graphite cranking rods and such were being measure as "fast" using the CCS scale.

I know the BFHP website is slower than it used to be, but hopefully someone can answer your questions better there.

None of the CCS measurements are skewed. In fact the CCS system provides relative results. The BFHP method does not. When you begin measuring for various handle lengths, it's like giving weights for finished rods instead of just the blank. Two rods built on the same blank by different folks can have different weights. The bastardized version of the CCS is fine, but it does not give relative results - the same blank (rod) can end up having many, many, many different powers and actions. Thus you can only compare if your rod has the same handle and reel seat length as the one that has the figures you're looking at.

There is no "fast" action on the CCS scale. The CCS measures in degrees, not subjective terms. Some people try to make the CCS fit their own subjective opinions, but the numbers are what they are. They do not lie. They can't. changing the system to make it fit someone's opinion isn't helpful and only undermines what the system was designed for - to take the human element of subjectivity out of the picture.

A good rod builder can take the meaurements of the inherent properties listed for a naked rod blank and get a pretty good idea of how they may change once the blank is built into a rod. This would include not only power and action, but weight, length, etc.

...........

In most cases, Spin Jig and Mag Bass blanks are identical blanks that have just been assigned into two categories. For instance, in the Loomis line, all "MB" blanks 6'6" to 7' are the identical blank as the "SJ" of the same length and power. Same blank. All the "C" blanks are the identical blank as the "SJ" in the 5'6" to 6' models. Same blanks, different nomenclature.

.............



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2007 05:40PM by Tom Kirkman.

Thanks for the replies, I think I am going to try a Lamiglass LSJ783 XMG50, has anyone used this blank before?

I have, nice blanks. Use it on the Columbia River jigging for walleye. We use some pretty good sized jigs and heavier lines in the heavy current and deep water and all the junk on the bottom from logging, etc.

I thought Spinjig blanks are extremely fast 15 inches of deflecting tip for a 7 foot blank. I think the LSJ series is hard to beat regardless of cost.

Mo

The first "Spin Jig" blanks were introduced by G. Loomis quite a few years ago. They just took their standard Casting and Mag Bass Series and redesignated a few of them as "Spin Jig" blanks.

Other companies may or may not do the same. But many times, their isn't any difference in the blanks - the same blank just shows up under several different categories. Check the butt and tip specs to see if the blank is the same, or not.

...................

I'm confused by the postings that state a mag-bass blank will typically have a faster action than a spin-jig blank. I have not worked with a mag-bass blank, but spin-jig blanks typically have a fast to extra fast action. Are we confusing action and power here? I have a hard time believing that a mag-bass blank of similar power rating will be faster than the comparable spin-jig blank. Unless, of course, as Tom says they are identical blanks...

Rich,
If you have been using Lamiglas, Shikari and other blanks for a while you've probably noticed that there are complete differences in the MB and SJ blanks. The SJs bend a little further back in blank and have a little less power in the butt for the same line rating. Tip and butt sizes completely different. Same when comparing SJ, SB, and MB blanks.

The slimming down of the butt sections with higher modulus materials has changed the ball game - look at the difference in taper of the IMC and LMB Lamiglas series. The spin jig series more resembles the IMC type taper. It is now possible to get a "mag bass" rod with a slimmed down version in the back end which results in a lighter overall rod with the equivalent power and stiffness.