I have looked around for years and never really found an answer to this question. If I have a bunch of loose Snake guides how can I pick out the various sizes? In other words which ones are #2, which are #3 etc. They are all pretty close in size to my eye, so probably need some kind of measuring device. Same for strippers. What size is a #10 stripper guide?

John,

Odd that there is no response to your question yet. I too am looking for some information related to fly guide sizing. Whether snake or single foot guides, I'm not really sure what the numerical designations of the guides mean to me. Is there in fact a standardization for these numbers? Do the numbers correspond to standardized diameters relative to those numbers? I have seen some information regarding the ring measurements of fly guides, and that information was that measurements for fly guides reflect the outside diameter of the guides, not the inside diameter. I'm not sure what sense that makes.

I'm hoping Herb Ladenheim will catch this and perhaps shed some light on this matter because it sure has me confused.

The ID of the guide frame determines guide size, rings depending on what they are built from are various sizes so they can't be relied on as a standard.

Here are some charts that give measurements.
[i.pinimg.com]
[snakeguides.com]
[raspberryfisher.files.wordpress.com]
Norm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2024 04:32PM by Norman Miller.

John. Get a set of calipers that measure both mm and inches. Those will give you exact measurements for inside, outside, height, length and thickness, not only of guides, but for a lot of other uses in rod building. Simply, they come in handy for all kinds of things.

From what I understand, snake guide sizing is not uniform from one manufacturer to another. So, snakes guide sizes are not standardized. This is in contrast to ceramic ringed guides, whose sizes are standardized among manufacturers based on the OD of the ring in mm.
I think the best you can do to size your stash of snake guides is to measure the ID and/or OD of the guide loop and compare them to measurements given by various manufacturers. You might get little piles of guides from large to small, and based on their diameters get a guesstimate as to their size. Calipers are great for measuring.
Norm

Use calipers and measure… a #2 is smaller than #3. Guides with rings, measure the outside of the ceramic ring where the ring contacts the metal.

All,
Many thanks for the replies. As I thought with a lot of what we do in rod building more of a "That looks about right" or TLR as we used to say in the AF. I had a feeling each manufacturer had their own sizing and I do own several calipers and micrometers that I use all the time. But the measurements I was getting were all over the charts and I was just curious as to why. Now I know and I will arrange my guides based on size "range" and be happy with it.

Again, many thanks.

Measuring guide diameters, whether inside or outside, for the purpose of putting the ones you already own in size places is one thing. But I have seen written on this board multiple times people giving advice on guide sizes for various weight fly rods using the "numbers". For example...for a 9 weight rod...Two strippers, #16 and #12, then single foot guides of one #5, two #4s and the rest #3s. Again, just an example, but a recommendation such as this is essentially meaningless if there is no industry standardization. If brands X, Y, and Z each make a number 3 guide, and none of those guides are the same diameter either inside or out, then telling someone to use number 3 guides seems a little silly to me.

The only way this type of advice would be useful it seems to me is if the person giving that advice is personally familiar with the guides in question, and states the exact guide models and sizes of a particular manufacturer. Otherwise it seems like a crapshoot.

Ernie Blum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Measuring guide diameters, whether inside or
> outside, for the purpose of putting the ones you
> already own in size places is one thing. But I
> have seen written on this board multiple times
> people giving advice on guide sizes for various
> weight fly rods using the "numbers". For
> example...for a 9 weight rod...Two strippers, #16
> and #12, then single foot guides of one #5, two
> #4s and the rest #3s. Again, just an example, but
> a recommendation such as this is essentially
> meaningless if there is no industry
> standardization. If brands X, Y, and Z each make
> a number 3 guide, and none of those guides are the
> same diameter either inside or out, then telling
> someone to use number 3 guides seems a little
> silly to me.
>
> The only way this type of advice would be useful
> it seems to me is if the person giving that advice
> is personally familiar with the guides in
> question, and states the exact guide models and
> sizes of a particular manufacturer. Otherwise it
> seems like a crapshoot.


No such thing as 2 stripper guides on a rod

Ron Weber Wrote:

> No such thing as 2 stripper guides on a rod

Technically true. I should have used the term "two double foot guides", but terminology aside, I was about to say that you get the point. But maybe you didn't. You can call those two guides Peter and Paul for all I care, the issue remains the same.

Although different, they are close enough; a few thousandths here a few thousandths there. Sorta like hook sizes, which vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. Pick the style and shape you like. To add a little more to the subject, it should also be mentioned that American and English snake guides differ in both shape and the direction the wire is twisted.
Norm

Thanks for the thoughts on standardization. We had the same issues only much more serious in the Computer industry in the early days of the PC. Every company that made peripheral hardware had its software that you had to load before it would work. So if you bought an Epson Printer, you had to load the Epson software for that printer. An HP printer would not work until you loaded their software. Microsoft solved the problem with what is common in the industry today. They introduced the Hardware Access Layer or HAL (interesting name if you recall 2001)—a place to plug your hardware's software in. So there was a common software interface and every maker could now build machines that talked to that layer. Of course, nowadays all we do is plug in hardware and it works, but the same software is at work under the covers.

So, why isn't there a standardized system? Same question about hooks, why doesn't the industry standardize the hook sizing? It would really simplify the selection process.