SPONSORS
2024 ICRBE EXPO |
Inshore casting blank compared to extended conventional bass
Posted by:
Mike Canavan
(---.nys.biz.rr.com)
Date: October 31, 2011 05:55PM
Just curious - Would a St. Croix 3C76MHF inshore blank be fairly comparable to an extended 3C70MHF casting blank? (Thanks!) Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/31/2011 06:21PM by Mike Canavan. Re: Inshore blank vs conventional
Posted by:
Russell Brunt
(---.mia.bellsouth.net)
Date: October 31, 2011 06:27PM
You would have to define what a "7' MHF casting blank" is.
To me, the St. Croix inshores have always had a surprising amount of power given their weight. The tips tend towards the stiff side too. Funny, I wouldn't hesitate to use one for anything from sails and dolphin to cobia, snook, and tarpon....and I would lean on them and turn hardy fish away from cover....yet I shudder at the idea of someone using them to lift a 7# bass into a boat. I guess I am saying I admire them and think them the equal of any blank when used correctly. I guess I'm also saying they wouldn't be something I'd loan to a fellow whom I thought might high stick or abuse/mistreat a rod. Russ in Hollywood, FL. Re: Inshore casting blank compared to extended conventional bass
Posted by:
Mike Canavan
(---.nys.biz.rr.com)
Date: November 01, 2011 10:32AM
Thanks Russell.
Just wondered if a 7'6" MHF Avid inshore blank would be comparable or ballpark to extending a 7' Avid MHF blank 6". Re: Inshore casting blank compared to extended conventional bass
Posted by:
Russell Brunt
(---.mercymiami.org)
Date: November 01, 2011 10:51AM
It has been my experience that if I compare two of the same rated blanks from the same company the longer one will usually dead lift a little more. Sometimes it won't seem quite as stiff though. So I guess I'd expect the extended one to be a little quicker and a little weaker. Russ in Hollywood, FL. Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
|