I'm looking for a blank for swimjigs and maybe some chatterbait and plain old jigs that would pretty much stay between 1/4-1/2 oz weight. I feel like 1/4 and 1/2 can be challenging to toss on the same rod (with the 1/4 being the problem not loading to launch well)depending on the reel, so probably more 3/8-1/2 oz.

NFC has most of their blanks labeled fast but they all look different- I was thinking of the FLIP 764 HM since it states mod-fast, but after being on the board I bit I know I can't really trust the descriptions or pictures of the blanks there.

Any other blank recommendations?

What would mod-fast be as an AA?

I was also thinking of a true medium blank for throwing those 1/4 oz jigs on, I feel like that should be around 1/8-5/8 or some other range between the two. I keep seeing Matt and Tim talk about the Loomis MB843 - is that essentially the NFC MB704? Seems like a solid medium, but idk if I'd rather something like 1/8-1/2 - or maybe I'd have a better idea of what I want if MH rods between companies or even within the same company could be 1/4-5/8 or 1/4-1 and instead everything was just in CCS form (which I'm still learning anyway).

What are your thoughts on lure ratings? What's a medium vs a MH?

Blanks for a true medium?

the loomis MBR843 has traditionally been considered a MH which is rated 1/4-3/4oz. 10-17lb
The MHX MB843 has the same ratings. great all purpose bass blanks. Per NFC the MB705 is the remastered version of the loomis MB843

If you're looking for moderate fast actions, I'd recommend looking into graphite crankbait/popping blanks. I've built on the American Tackle Bushido crankbait blanks and like them a lot (The CB72/8-15 is rated for 3/8 to 3/4 oz, and is listed as medium power). I'm sure NFC has some crankbait blanks (maybe in the delta line) that others will recommend, I just haven't built a crankbait rod on an NFC blank.

As for what qualifies as a mod-fast, medium vs. medium heavy etc. it's going to be somewhat subjective to each company/builder. You'll probably develop your own ideas of it as you learn CCS and get hands on more blanks, or by just getting some of the data for certain blanks from others on this site and comparing to what they like to use those blanks for.

Casting a span of 1/4-1/2 is not a challenge for good blanks/rods.

I know if I give you my opinion on translating subjective descriiptors of power and action to CCS numbers, there will be disagreement. Not surprising since everyone can rightfully have their opinion as to what "Moderate-Fast" really means.

But I would say that a mod-fast action would be in the area of 65-70 degrees AA.

It is my opinion that X-fast action rods have the widest span of lure weghts that cast well since the light tip can load well with the lighter lures and the long backbone prevents overload with heavier lures. This probably also will generate disagreement, but it is my opinion.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had agreement on a translation of current subjective descriptions into CCS numbers? Then when one bought a mod-fast blank he would not be surprised when it arrived.

The CCS doesn't use terms such as fast, moderate, slow, etc. In fact, part of the reason it was developed was to hopefully obsolete such terms. Now if you need a place to start in order to have something to relate to, run the AA measurement on a rod you have now. Once you have that number, you can determine if other measured blanks are faster or slower than the one you have now.

You can look in the glossary in the library page here for the general definitions for action such as fast, moderate and slow.

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

Tom, I knew you wouldn't like the comment on correlating the terms everyone in the fishing culture has used for years, yet are imprecise and inconsistent, with the objective CCS terms that are precise and constent that so many are confused by. By correlating one to the other we could make good progress towards getting consistency in the ratings of blanks from the manufacturers and commercial rod builders. So one would be confident in getting what he wanted with respect to power and action.

It is clear that CCS has not made significant progress in obsoleting the subjective terms. Might be a good strategy to keep them and provide some precision by adopting a consistent correlation to CCS.

I didn't read that comment, I was replying to the OP.

The CCS doesn't use those terms. Most manufacturers do. It would be up the manufacturers to keep them, or not. Since the terms do have definite definitions, you could always find the range of rods that say, do initially flex in the upper 1/3rd (Fast) and then reverse measure them for AA. Then you could divide the AA into 3 or 4 ranges to match. Anybody could do that if they wanted.

In the meantime, the CCS gained the support of several blank and rod manufacturers right out of the gate back in 2006. Due to so many people using it in different ways, altering and renaming it, using different terms, etc., those manufacturers dropped it. I doubt any will pick it up again as few believe it is "standardized."


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

Thanks for all the input. I feel like CB blanks are just a little softer than I think I want, CB modfast vs MB mod fast vs whatever else I guess is part of the confusion. I can't believe some of the blanks called fast that I see online, but in each category I guess it's all relative.

@MICHAEL thanks, very helpful for me to have some sort of reference to what I can expect with correlating AA and common descriptions of action (kind of sort of because all these words have lost their meaning in the fishing industry haha). The problem is the industry just doesn't use enough words. I like how Kistler added light medium heavy and heavy medium heavy to their line up descriptions, adds just that much more clarity and distinction between models. But actions still remain a shot in dim light (not quite a shot in the dark, but still can't totally expect to get what you think is fast when any given manufacturer calls something fast - but close enough to some degree).

I'm going to run a search for the St. Croix Victory 7'2 MHmF - I like it for swim jigs but think I want something just a little either stronger or faster - but just slightly faster if that's where the difference will be made. It goes up to 7/8 oz so seems like the power should be fine for my 3/8-1/2 oz swimjigs, just think I want to hit the backbone just a little sooner. Or maybe a longer rod with very similar specs would balance that as well so away from me the back bone starts at (just random numbers here) 6'5 instead of 6ft but would have more tip in front of it so would remain relatively moderate fast.

Hope that's clear, I'm learning not a whole lot is in the industry- and I don't have a space to measure CCS myself presently so I'm relying on what I can find on this site, which I am very grateful for.

If we did a correlation to CCS using the familiar terms there would be no need to use CCS in advertising. All the consumer would see would be the familiar terms. But they would be consistent instead of all over the place.

I don't hold much hope, but it does make a lot of sense.

I think what Tom is talking about is when CCS was first published it was embraced by some manufacturers, and they started publishing CCS data on their blanks. Then CCS was hijacked and modified to Rod Deflection Analysis (RDA). Although both are similar, they give different numbers for IP and AA due to the way they are measured. CCS IP and AA will always be higher than RDA IP and AA when measured on exactly the same blank. Since it impossible to convert one to the other, it caused a lot of confusion and manufacturers dropped objective labeling of their rods and blanks. In my opinion, RDA development is responsible for manufacturers not objectively standardizing their rods via CSS and going back to their subjective power and action ratings. Just my opinion.
Norm

Mike and Norm make good points. One issue with trying to correlate the CCS numbers to the familiar terms is that the CCS offers so much greater resolution it would be very hard to do. Action, as it's been defined over a near century now, really only encompasses 3 or perhaps 4 points. Power is maybe a dozen or so and that's if you count a "heavy power" bass rod and "heavy power" surf rod as two different points.

And Norm is being kind when he refers to "RDA Development" That wasn't development - that was intellectual property theft.

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

The upper limit is what you need to concern yourself with on the MB705, there is nothing left in my opinion on the top end limit, the low limit is not a concern.

spencer
in your opinion, is the MB705 close to the old MB843? From CCS numbers ive seen posted and rodhouse deflection charts, the 705 looks to be a lighter powerd rod.

TIA
Matt

Regarding: " I like how Kistler added light medium heavy and heavy medium heavy to their line up descriptions, adds just that much more clarity and distinction between models."

I submit that while it may make you feel better, relative to blanks/rods made by another company, you really know no more. You still don't know what you are going to get.

To prevent highjacking this string of posts, I'll start another with a proposal.

Another thing to think about is a 1/2 oz jig is considerably over 1/2 oz when you add a plastic trailer.

Even on finesse stuff trailers add up. A 1/10 oz jig with a 2.8-3” swimbait is now a 1/4 oz.

Matt,
I presonally was never a big fan of the Loomis MB843, IMO the MB783 was a superior rod in my hand. The NFC 705 is faster and softer in the initial tip than either one than sets up quickly making me say "OK, there's the MH" and ends with less final backbone. A Med and a half compared to the others.
That said, I think it's one of the blanks where you could walk up to the edge of a pond, climb in the jon boat or canoe with a little bit of everything in a small bag and not feel under or overgunned with whatever you tied on, wouldn't be afraid to play with smallmouths or river walleye or fish the shallows in Florida with it either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2022 08:18PM by Spencer Phipps.

Matt, just as Spencer has stated the 705 is nowhere near the same blank as the Loomis MB843, significantly less powerful.

thx spencer great indepth description right there. yeah the ccs and the deflection charts didnt seem to add up to it being the same power as the 843. thought maybe i was missing something with the 705 being a remastered version. thx for confirming
medium and a half sounds like a very versatile blank!!