No reason for the butt guide to have a larger ring than that of the reel (usually a #6) as long as it is of appropriate height. The RV-6 accomplishes this. I once wanted to use a KW-8 because it was the same height as the RV-6, but was told by a respected (by all) source that the #10 was the one because the bottom of the ring was the same height as the RV-6 ring. I would go with the 7. Lol

I concur with Michael Danek and his insightful comment:

Paraphrased: "Rational and well-considered decisions, backed by data, won't lead you astray in building a very functional rod, line, and reel system for your fishing situation."

Correct me if I misunderstood you, Mick..

Mick In Bullet Points:

Rational....based on data, and not anecdotes nor emotions.
Well-Considered Decisions....based on the experiences of those with millions of collective hours of on the water, and research from various, credible sources.
Backed by Data....from Fuji, CCS, TNF and other sources that are based on observable outcomes than can be measured.

One-Two-Three - Makes Sense to Me.

Back to the OP:

Absolutely try the #7 Butt Guide, Joe! It may be perfect for your build! Only YOU can make that call.

Thank you, Les. You interpreted my comment accurately.

Lynn .... your mentioning the height of the bottom of the RV 6 is interesting to me. I'm wondering if the reason that height matters, is all about keeping the line off the blank between the reel and the butt guide when the rod is under a load, of if it has to do with casting performance? If it has anything at all to do with casting performance, then I have been looking at butt guide size, and placement, all wrong.

I've always looked at it as a height to the inside of the top of the ceramic ring thing. That's why I've always mentioned that I consider the angle of the line from the reel to the butt guide when choosing and placing a butt guide. If the guide is too short, or too close to the face of the reel it increases that angle which causes more friction. I'm not talking about line wear friction like some in this thread are. I'm not worried about my line wearing out because of friction caused when casting. IMO that's a complete non factor. I'm talking about friction that can slow the line as it's leaving the reel and start small backlashes on the reel spool.

As I said in an earlier post ..... I am convinced that the shorter KW8 that I used as the butt guide on my jerkbait rod was the main factor in the casting difference I experienced when I switched to a heavier and stiffer line.

So to all parties involved ......... a little help here please. For a casting rod, other than keeping the line off the blank when the rod is under load ..... does the height of the bottom of the butt guide's ceramic ring have anything to do with casting performance? If you believe it does, please explain why.

I just don't see how it could .... not on a casting rod

Dave, at the moment this is all I got. [m.youtube.com]

David -

You bring up some great questions that I do not have answers for. But your question(s) are valuable and thought-provoking..

I am thinking about these factors with guide height, ring size, and casting performance in mind:

1.) Casting Reels, and the Spool Guide, play a role in the initial Choke of the Line from the Get-Go.
* Spinning Reels rely on a Reduction Train to tame and control line spiraling off a spool oriented differently than a casting reel. Stiffer lines need a larger ring size to tame larger and stiffer coils.
* Stiffer lines come off a Spinning Reel Spool differently than a Casting Reel Spool at the moment of the cast. That is, the Casting Reel has a "pre-choke" aspect to it that the spinning reel does not.
2.) All the Fuji Research I have read about is focused more on the TOP of the casting guide rather than the Bottom of the guide (or Guide Height). In my interpretation, this is because Guide Height in relationship to Reel Height is a critical factor to a smooth line flow from the reel to the running guides. Some like KW10 to KW5.5, and some prefer an RV6 straight to a KB or two of the same size running guide. The KW10 and RV6 are of similar height, not diameter, however. This diameter versus height question was one I had on my mind in earlier posts. (And the conclusion I came to was that an RV6 Butt Guide was the right height and minimum ring size for the reels and line types and sizes I wanted to fish...not that others won't work! If I were going to a "Heavy" rig, I think I would consider a KW10 and KW5.5 set up!)

So, I see no reason why the BOTTOM of the casting guide plays a critical role in casting performance. It does not seem to play for me in my experiences as much as the TOP or Height of the guide.

As far as finding greater casting distance with a KW8 vs. KW10 with a Heavier Line on your jerkbait rig, that is a great one to ponder! Maybe the heavier line was still within the range of that line and guide combo? Maybe the heavier line benefitted from a more rapid choke with the #8? I don't see a whole lot of difference between a #8 and a #10 ring in terms or the size. Line angle (or distance) from the reel would play the larger role in my thinking.

What's your take?

Lynn, yeah, I had watched that video in the past. It's actually where I got the idea that it was guide height to the top of the ceramic ring that was important. You could see line stacking behind the butt guide on the rod with what looks to me to be a #5 or smaller KB or F style guide as the butt guide. I figure the increased friction caused by the shorter height was the main culprit in causing that. I also noticed the first time I watched that video, that the line was under more control after passing through the shorter, smaller butt guide. I attribute that to the height of the guide at its' highest point of the ceramic ring.

One other thing I noticed when watching that video the first time, and subsequent times, is that with the KW 10 butt guide, the line is very close to passing through the center of the butt guide. I know seeing is believing, but any time I've tried pushing the butt guide a distance from the reel face for that to be possible, the guide has been 24 - 25" from the reel face. And still the line isn't passing directly through the middle of the ring. I did some test casts on a rod I was building with the butt guide at 24 1/2" from the face of the reel, and it casted like doody. Maybe it was because I had heavy fluorocarbon line on the reel? I don't know .... all I know is it didn't cast worth beans.

As far as the RV 6 goes. I had never really checked the actual dimensions of it, versus those of the KW 10. I had read people say that it was the same height as the KW 10, and I assumed they were talking about overall height. After seeing what Lynn said about being told the bottom of the ring on an RV 6 is the same height as the bottom of the ring on a KW 10, I decided to take a look at their actual dimensions on the Angler's Resource web site. The RV 6 is about 2 mm shorter than the KW 10. Taking into consideration the difference in ring size and dang if the bottoms of their rings aren't close to being the same height. I am at a loss as to why that is as important as the overall height of the guide? Nothing in the linked video or any of the other Fuji videos I've watched, mention anything about it being a consideration. But, like Lynn said, the KW 8 And RV 6 are almost the same overall height. But the ring size difference means the KW 8 has a slightly lower height at the bottom of the ring than the RV 6. Fuji designed the RV 6 specifically as a butt guide for casting rods. Yet no specific mention about its' height at the bottom of the ring? I find that puzzling.

But ..... they do mention and you can see in the video, how shorter guides cause line bunching between the reel and the butt guide. You can see in the video, that the greater friction caused by the shorter guide tames the line substantially more than the line is tamed passing through the center of a KW 10. Yes you can see that with the shorter butt guide that you still get some disturbed line flow past the butt guide, but were talking about basically a micro guide as the butt guide. And who knows what the distance from the reel face it is. If you increase the height of the butt guide thereby lessening the angle of the line as it enters the butt guide, it may not tame the line passing through as thoroughly, but would you still have that kind of disturbance past the butt guide? There are definitely trade offs that need to be considered. I know one thing .... watching that video again, it appears to me as if a little friction caused by the top the butt guide ring would tame the line more rapidly than if it would if it were passing through the center or the ring basically unimpeded.

And Les, as I mentioned above, I am in agreement with you as to never seeing any mention of the height of the bottom of the butt guide's ring. And I don't think I am misinterpreting the use of the word "height" in the Angler's Resource videos. I'm sticking with the overall height of the butt guide as what has the greatest affect on casting rod performance. And just to be clear, I had less casting distance and a greater propensity to backlash with the KW 8 as a butt guide with heavier line. The KW 10 is a lot better with heavier line.. And yes, as I have said in the past. I believe line angle as it enters the butt guides is a prime consideration in butt guide placement.

I wonder how it works with that T-wing butt guide (which I'm unfamiliar with) on the Diawa reels. Dave, E-Mail



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2023 04:56PM by Lynn Behler.

I simply cannot believe this has gone on this long. All of the options work well with any reel, any rod, any line.

Lol, Mick. Beats reading the same KR ?s over and over and over...

Michael .... if you don't have a clue, then you don't have a clue. There's nothing wrong with that. But a response like that from someone like you, who regularly insists on data to back up an opinion. I thought you were a what makes things tick kind of guy?

I guess not ....

David, I believe I do have a clue. As I have stated, I have built with many different setups and they all work what I call "pretty well." I have not test cast in a rigorous way with all kinds of line, but I have fished them a lot. It just seems like this issue has already been beaten to death and the original poster made his decision a long time ago based on his good information, including some data, and considerations of all the opinions. Keep in mind that most of us can offer only opinions, and many of them just don't seem rational. When I have built with a 6 first guide and it works well, why would not both a 7 and a 10 work well? OK, no data, but I seem to be out-casting most of the other fishermen I fish with.

I should be more patient and simply shut up, and I apologize for that remark.

At this point someone could ask Joe, how did the trip go? Did you like the size 7 butt guide? Any hick-ups?

Maybe you'd prefer this thread: [www.rodbuilding.org]

Pardon me please.