I remember when micro guides first came out years ago, there were some guys (Billy?) who were touting it to the skeptics and using guides as small as 2.5 if I remember. Angler's resource were carrying SICs down to 3.0, again if I remember correctly.

However, Angler's Resource now only go down to 4.0 and I'm reading a number of 'micro' guide users going larger than 4.

Is there a reason why the 2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 no longer seem to be as popular? For most who do not join two lines and have to pass a large know, I'm not sure why sub 4.0 won't work just as well, and save some weight (though very slight weight differential).

Thanks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2018 05:18AM by Mo Yang.

I have not looked in a long time, I do not know if Fuji still makes the MKSG's. This photo is from 2007, right before the micro craze blew up, so there were not too many options available at the time
[www.rodbuilding.org]

I still have about a set worth of those 2.5's for personal use. I fished them pretty extensively in SW, casting as much as 1oz on an 8' spin rod - and loved them, never had a problem with them. I can see why they stopped producing them thugh, they were probably a nightmare for a factory worker to handle, and there wasn't enough of a demand from the rod building world to warrant keeping them in productiion.

If I remember coorectly, after the initial wave of micro mania, the general consensus was that smaler than a size 4 gives you the law of diminishing returns.

As so often happens in many hobbies new ideas will get pushed to the limit by the innovators (and manufacturers are guilty of helping them do it). In this case, the micro-guide supporters were fighting to overcome a STRONG traditional preference for size 8 or even larger runners. Factories and custom builders gotta sell stuff so eventually, the pendulum started to swing back the other way to recapture customers who "would never use a guide that small". Seems we settled around a 5 or 5.5 in most cases which was a seismic shift for the market. IMO, we had to go all the way to 2.5 to wind up at 5. All the benefits are there with a 5 and you can still see it and wrap it. :)

Special thanks to all the "limit-pushers" out there...you changed far more than preferred runner size.

I use Fuji KT 4s when I don't have to pass a knot, 4.5s if they're using something like an FG knot, and 5s for everything else.

Pac Bay still makes size 3 runners. I put them on an ultralight spinning rod the other day and am happy with the way it turned out.

Forecast offers a #2 in their minis. A #4 in their BMKLG "minis" weighs 4x more than the #2. A #5 in that same series weight 5.5x as much. There is no way I would use a #2 ....... I wouldn't be able to see it LOL

David,
10-4 on seeing the tiny guides.

This is a real problem for a lot of older fishermen who go to thread a line through the guides on their rods. If they can't easily see the guides to thread the line, they will soon throw the rod in a corner and use a rod with 5 or 6 runners so that they do not have to fight the vision problem.

Yes, there are a lot of older fishermen who have vision issues, but still love to fish.

Good luck

Thanks everyone for the conversation. Much appreciated.

So it seems that the advantages of the 5.0 and 5.5 are primarily for ease of wrapping, public acceptance, ease of threading line for older eyes? (I too have older eyes....:) and possibly passing knots through.

Is there are distance detriment to using 3.0 over 5.0? If I recall Billy, you are fishing for bass and use something like 12 lbs mono or fluoro for your micro micros?

Jim, is there any distance reduction by going too small - or is it more just market forces?

I do think that there is still a slight but detectable difference for very light UL - and my gut reaction is not just the weight, but also the air resistance from 6 running guides where one is seeking maximum tip speed while casting.

Thanks!

I have them down to 2 mm, and use the 3 mm Batson BMKLG quite a bit, because they are easier to find, other 3mm are getting harder to find. Haven't have distance problems, in fact with braid the distances increased considerably, mono in the 10 lb. range is about as far as I go and didn't lose any distance over standard builds and dang close to the distances with braid.

I use 10# Power pro with teh 2.5's, stripper was a TATSG 12 & 16, then a size 8. I never had a problem with the sf guides, but I broke the size 16 and replaced with teh 12, works just fine. I never ha da problem stringing the line through the guides, you do it one time when you are home and tie a lure on, and the line never has to be restrung until I take teh reel off to clean at the end of teh year. And there is a big difference between how the lighter tipped rods feel with those tiny guides vs what people now consider micros - and I'm one of the people who believe in teh law of diminishing returns.

Mo I have a bunch of the batson in 2.0. Let me know what you are looking for and an address and you find Santa comes early. I have all black as well as black frame with blue ring( I have these up to 6 with each size in between).

Regarding detriment of distance I find the 3.0 are superior especially when pitching for bass as well as small braid and mono under 10(2.0’s)

Tom

Thanks Thomas. Very generous. Not sure if I should take you on your offer without paying you. I've never seen a 2.0 and am curious how tiny they must be. Smallest I ever went was 3.0.

But it sounds like 3.0 pitches further for you. Is that the sweet spot or did not compare with even larger sizes like 4.0?

I build for 2 to 4 lbs mono/fluoro. At most, 6 lbs and that is rarely.

Hi Mo, not worried about payment! Am simply offering to you if you would like. On my ultralight setups I really the 2.0’s. That is the sweet spot for me. On bass rods using 12 lb and under I go with 2.5. Over 12lb up to 20 I use 3.0 or 3.5’s.

Let me know in the 2.0’s

Tom