Got my NFC blanks delivered the other day and last night had a chance to take a few quick measurements with the calipers. The XRAY SJ703 was very very close to published dimensions but was surprised how much the SB684 was off. Batteries were dead in my scale so no weights yet

from NFC:
Xray SB684 TIP 4.5, BUTT .540, 1.3oz.

I couldnt get a size 5 tip to go on more than about a 1/4" so i would need a size 5.5 to fit this blank. the Butt dimension i measured was .569. the tip size is more concerning than the butt Diameter variance

The dimension actually match the xray SJ685 pretty closely but who knows.

In the past any blanks ive measured from other manufacturers have been very close to published dimensions.

What do ya guys think? i have an email into NFC about it too.

thx
Matt

Its mostly a crapshoot for the tip. I try to stock up on tips but sometimes I need to order the size that fits. No biggie.

If you want to make sure you have a tip size that fits an NFC blank be sure to order one tube size up or wait to measure it once it arrives and then order. I couldn't get the listed tip size to fit either .

Matt,
Due to the manufacturing process of a blank, it would be expecting quite a bit for advertised tip sizes to be right-on each and every time, even within the same model; one needs to acknowledge and accept that there will be deviations. There are 2 methods to ensure receiving the correct tip top tube size without having to order additional sizes; 1.) If you are ordering the blank and other components (ie tip top) from the same supplier, simply ask them to fit the tip top to the blank; any reputable dealer will willingly do so; 2.) If ordering the blank and other components from different sources, simply wait until you receive the blank and then measure the tip diameter (also for seats, butt caps, winding checks etc) to ensure receiving the exact size required. While it may cost a bit more time to receive all the needed parts, you will avoid the additional cost of multiple tip tops and other components, not to mention the aggravation of parts which do not fit.

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

yeah i didnt order anything for these blanks, just took some quick measurements with the calipers and when i noticed the tip size of the SB684 being so much larger than spec and the SJ703 being right on spec, it got me thinking. so i tried a few tops i had in stock. Obviously there are gonna be variations but this seemed more than normal but sounds like it is
thx

Matt, I hesitate to speak of the differences I've seen in NFC's published blank dimensions versus the dimensions of the blanks I received. Reason being, I never informed NFC of the discrepancies, so I didn't give them a chance to "fix it" or explain it.

With that said. I have had 3 blanks from NFC that had dimensions no where near what the published dimensions were for those blanks. The first two were X ray blanks of the same model. Long story short, I am convinced I didn't get the blanks I ordered.

The other blank was a blank from the IM series. I had to use a full size larger tip top than the published tip top size. The butt was also substantially larger than the published dimensions for the blank. I can't remember the exact number, but it was close to, or in excess of .030"

I know this. I bought the above mentioned blank based on its' published dimensions and its' lure and line weight ratings. Based on those factors I was expecting a blank with an IP in the mid 400 gram range. The IP I got in my CCS testing is 533 grams. Which makes sense as the tip and butt are substantially larger than what I expected.

So yeah .... I have gotten blanks from NFC that didn't match the numbers published for them.

Blanks are not precision machined parts. They are mostly hand made. The catalog specs are target specs. It is absolutely not at all unusual for any blank to have a tip diameter that is a half 64th off spec.

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

Thx David
that’s kinda what I was thinking....is it the SB684 that I received? maybe maybe not. I’m in that same ballpark of.030 difference in butt and a whole size up in tip(4.5 to 5 ok but 4.5 to 5.5 plus the larger butt?) I mean I do have an SB684 sticker ...sooo...lol. Doesn’t make it easy if Ya want to duplicate the build later. I guess I won’t know til I weigh it and take some RDA measurements. I’ll measure it in CCS too but I only have RDA numbers to compare to at the moment. NFC said they do not have ccs on that blank yet. Roadhouse does advise a size 5/2mm tip btw

NFC replied back this afternoon stating “ I wouldn’t be able to answer why an anomaly exists contradicting the published data”

Don’t get me wrong this blank is gonna make a very nice rod either way. The mirror black is a nice look too!

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Blanks are not precision machined parts. They are
> mostly hand made. The catalog specs are target
> specs. It is absolutely not at all unusual for any
> blank to have a tip diameter that is a half 64th
> off spec.
>
> ..................
100% understood. half a 64th off spec sure. I’ve seen that plenty. I’m looking at a 4.5 to a 5.5 here. Plus the larger butt dia. It’s enough to question IMO. When I get back in town I’ll throw it on the scale and check the weight.

I guess I don't understand, are they blank manufacturers, or publishers. I selected blanks hoping they would be what I was looking for, built them, no matter the dimensions and fished them. I didn't care what tip size the blank had or it's butt diameter as long as it did the job I hoped it would do. Many times, the blanks I used went through an evolution over time to get it right once the general public got a hold of them. One example was the Lamiglas XMG50 series, they had some returns and then fixed it, I have no idea if they did, or even could have changed the published specs on the fly if need be, I really don't think it would have made my life better if they had.

I guess I don’t understand either spencer. I mean how did you pick those blanks that ya hoped would work for ya...I’d assume you used what the manufacturer published about those blanks they are selling.

Funny ya mentioned xmg50s. Out of the 4 or 5 I’ve built nothing ever jumped out as being way out of spec. Maybe they updated as they went idk. I bought them towards the end of their run just before they were discontinued...should have bought more....have one more LSJ781 left, wish I had a couple more LC862 blanks too. Very nice blanks!

Thx Matt

Are they blank manufacturers or publishers? So if you buy something based on a description, and the item you receive doesn't match the description ..... oh well? So if you bought something because the description said it was blue, but the one they sent you is red ........ oh well. LOL

I'll go into more detail concerning the X ray blanks I mentioned above.

I ordered 2 MB 736 blanks. The dimensions of the blanks I received matched the dimensions of SJ 736 blanks perfectly. At the time there was a thread about the X ray blanks going, and another member mentioned ordering an MB 736 blank and had received one with the same dimensions as the ones I received. That member said he may have gotten the wrong blank. I responded that my guess is that it was a misprint on the website. Later in that thread, or possibly a different one, that member supplied CCS numbers for the MB 738 blank and an SJ 736 blank. The CCS numbers I got for the rods I built on the "MB736" blanks I received, matched the CCS numbers the other site member got for an SJ 736 blank.

I didn't receive decals with my blanks so I wrote NFC requesting decals for the blanks. Even though my CCS numbers matched those of an SJ 736, I was fully expecting to get decals for MB 736 blanks. Nope .... I was sent SJ 736 decals. I wrote NFC back saying I needed decals for MB 736 blanks, as that was the blanks I had ordered. I was sent MB 736 decals. For a while anytime I mentioned those rods in a thread, I said they were built on MB 736 blanks. Then I started mentioning in threads that I wasn't sure which blank I got.

Now, because of the CCS data, I just say I have 2 rods built on SJ 736 blanks LOL

Anyhow ... I get that hand built things don't always matched their specified numbers. I work with, and build hand built product every day. And aren't always the exact size they are supposed to be. But even though the blanks are hand made, a full size larger tip top and a .030" larger butt like both Matt and I have encountered, is ............... questionable,

For me, it has nothing to do with having a tip top that fits, it's all about the increase tip size altering the action I ordered. In my golf club experience, larger tip, less flex. Waiting to hear from y'all.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Anyhow ... I get that hand built things don't
> always matched their specified numbers. I work
> with, and build hand built product every day. And
> aren't always the exact size they are supposed to
> be. But even though the blanks are hand made, a
> full size larger tip top and a .030" larger butt
> like both Matt and I have encountered, is
> ............... questionable,

yup, basically all i was saying too. its enough to question....i did get a chance last night to weigh the blanks. the SB684 was 1.4 oz., so its right in there with the published weight. talked with another guy who has measured that blank and he got 1.45 oz. 4.5 tip and .555 butt.. im guessing its the right blank and they just have a wider range of tolerances in their blanks than some.. The SJ703 is almost dead on published specs...1.5oz., 4 tip, and .510 butt. id call that on spec!

Jeffrey D Rennert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For me, it has nothing to do with having a tip top
> that fits, it's all about the increase tip size
> altering the action I ordered. In my golf club
> experience, larger tip, less flex. Waiting to
> hear from y'all.

x2. good point

Jeffery, exactly !!! I chose the one blank I spoke of in this thread based on what I expected from a blank with the dimensions and lure weight ratings that were posted on NFC's web site, . I have a few blanks from NFC/s IM series of blanks, so based on dimensions of those other blanks, and how they fish, I felt pretty confident that I was going to have a blank in a certain power range and with a certain action.

Anyhow ......... based on the published blank dimensions and a lure weight rating of 1/8 - 3/8 oz and line size rating of 6 - 12# line, I was expecting a blank with an IP in the mid 400's and an AA of somewhere around 74. The CCS numbers I came up for the blank in question are an IP of 533, with an AA of 71. Perhaps 72. It was close. Quite a bit more powerful and a slower action than I was expecting. And like you, I think it being more powerful than expected is directly related to the dimensions of the blank being IMO,. considerably larger than what is listed on the web site.

This is where CCS numbers from the manufacturer would really come in handy. I probably won't be building very many more rods, I have too many as it is, lol But if do build any more rods, it won't be on a blank that I don't have some way of finding out what the CCS numbers are. Of course I said that before I bought the blank being discussed here.

But this time I mean it !!! LOL

David
that blank wouldnt happen to be the SJ704 IM would it?

Yes Matt .... it would

Does NFC have a return policy for blanks that do not measure to be what was published on their site and , if so , what are their tolerances ? I know they have a breakage return policy listed on their site but could find nothing about measurement tolerances ??

NFC is not the first company to have published discrepancies in their catalog and they won't be the last. Is this a real insurmountable problem? If so, we can vote with our pocketbook. Has anyone checked the accuracy of all the rest of our suppliers and if so, where is the posts mentioning it? Do we want our blank companies to thrive, or order everything from Alibaba?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/13/2022 02:48PM by Spencer Phipps.