brookie rods

[evw659]

Im looking for a good all around brookie rod. One that i could fish in streams no bigger than a trickle, to moderate sized brookie streams.
i want the rod, reel, and line to be under $250 combined. thinking a 6'6" 3 or 4 weight but not sure. any thoughts on size of the rod and brands? as i have no idea what to get

 

[stevehalupka]

mu suggestion: Contact Adam at www.laurelridgerods.com

He set me up with a 6'6'' 2 wt. that casts great... an rx7 blank.

you could save a few with a rx6 blank and def. be at or under 250

 

[pcray1231]

My opinion: You would NEVER want to spend $250 on a brookie rod for tight streams. Dangerous situation for a rod, so I take cheap stuff that I wouldn't cry about if I broke. My brookie rod was under $100, and it's come to be among my favorite rods.

I'm a fan of the short and stiff, I like my 7 foot 5 wt type rods for this. Never saw it as a game of finesse on brookie streams, they're not drag shy nor line shy, its about powering a cast up and under that dang branch that hangs out over the water.

And length is variable, how tight we talkin? Use as long as you can get away with, but not longer. Some streams you want a true 6 ft rod, others you'd prefer 8 or 8 1/2 ft. A 7 or 7 1/2 ft is a good compromise, it's perfect for most, and only slightly too long or too short for the rest.

As far as blanks, hmm. I use a Cortland GRX 7'6" 4/5 wt. Ran under $100. They don't make em anymore, but they've been replaced with the Brook series. Decent rods. TFO makes some good stuff in this range. I've heard good things about the Cabelas TQR's.

Reels truly DO NOT MATTER for brookie fishing. You'll never use the drag, it's nothing more than a place to store line. It should balance the rod correctly, though, and with short graphite sticks that often means a lighter reel. Honestly, what I like to do is just get an extra spool for a reel you already have.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

250.00 for rod, reel and line is cheap IMO. You probably don't want to go much lower.
I don't mean cheap in a bad way. I'd look around this range for such a rod

 

[gfen]

Several people espouse the use of short, mid weight rods, as pcray did above. Having no experience in this field, I can only point out that Cabela's offers a 6' 5wt rod for $109 in the TQR line.

For the guys who do this, I assume you want to steer away from slower actioned rods and this is a place where fast action finds its proper place?

 

[pcray1231]

For the guys who do this, I assume you want to steer away from slower actioned rods and this is a place where fast action finds its proper place?

Within reason. Tight loops are important. But you gotta be able to load it at close distances, and sometimes the broomstick type rods have trouble with this. Tip should flex easily, but you don't want that flex to go too far down the rod.

Throw TIGHT loops with little or no backcast, roll cast well (specially the tight, low knee high rolls), short enough to walk through a rhododendron hell with, cheap enough that you aren't gonna cry if you bust it on a limb while casting. If it does all of that, you have a fine brookie rod.

 

[stevehalupka]

The rod builder I suggested will not give you a quote for more than 150 dollars for a 6'6'' rod... we're talking a custom build where YOU pick out the color of your wraps, cork, and reel seat.

you'll pay around 40 for a light reel, and 30-40 for line...

I laugh at the thought of fishing any wild freestoner with a 4 or 5 wt rod. overline a 2 wt with 3 wt line and you'll get the load you want. These custom builds throw line so nice that I am able to cast the normal 50 feet. I've even handled large, private club trout on the rod.

 

[bikerfish]

this year my favorite brookie rod is my FH Paddock blank I built up. it's a 6'6" glass, casts a 4 wt very nicely, loads with 6 feet of line out, and will still cast small wooly buggers if they refuse dries(those bastards!)
I've got way under 250 into my entire brookie setup. if your looking for something real cheap, get a short eagle claw glass and throw a medalst 1492 on that thing. you'll be under 50 bucks for rod and reel!! call up hookand hackle and get a line for 30 bucks and your good to go.

 

[gfen]

bikerfish wrote:
get a short eagle claw glass and throw a medalst 1492 on that thing. you'll be under 50 bucks for rod and reel!!

I was tempted to go there, but it would be pure conjecture on my part. It was the leading question on fast action/tip action rods.

All I can say is if you think a fuller flexing rod would work, the 7' 5wt is a pretty awesome piece (if i do say so myself), and I think the 6'6" would toss a 5wt line with alplomb (the card it comes with says 3/4, the rod says 5/6, opinions vary).

The downside is banana yellow, but a can of spraypaint'll fix that.

The upside is its under $20, and virtually indestructable.

That's a full force, abruptly stopped 2/3rds into my back cast by a stone pylon, and was over six months of hard fishing ago. It flecked the paint, and it just keeps on keepin' on. Its the Timex of fly rods.

 

[TimMurphy]

stevehalupka wrote:
The rod builder I suggested will not give you a quote for more than 150 dollars for a 6'6'' rod... we're talking a custom build where YOU pick out the color of your wraps, cork, and reel seat.

you'll pay around 40 for a light reel, and 30-40 for line...

I laugh at the thought of fishing any wild freestoner with a 4 or 5 wt rod. overline a 2 wt with 3 wt line and you'll get the load you want. These custom builds throw line so nice that I am able to cast the normal 50 feet. I've even handled large, private club trout on the rod.

Dear Steve,

Your last paragraph is very telling.

Maybe if you were a little older and had fished a little more you might realize the error of what you consider to be a laughable offense?

With more time and experience you just might come to the realization that 2 and 3 weights were developed and marketed mostly so that rodmakers could capitalize on the vast ontapped market comprised primarily of inept unskilled "trout" fishermen with money to burn.

With "ultralight rods" even average dufuses can manage some modest success fishing for the only fish on earth dumber than a bluegill. Yep,you guessed it, those oh so wily and sophisticated brook trout!

The best wild trout stream fisherman I've ever seen fished with an 8 1/2 foot Fenwick fiberglass 7 weight loaded with level line and spool of 8# Stren for a leader because that was all that he owned.

Rest assured he could, and regularly did, outfish almost anyone with that rig because he knew what he was doing and didn't have to count on his tackle to for an advantage.

His stealth and stream knowledge was the only advantage required.

Things haven't changed since then and most likely never will.

Regardless of what Sage, Winston, Orvis, Loomis, or your local fly shop tells you a 5 weight will forever be a relatively lightweight fly rod and perfectly adequate for brook trout fishing.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[pete41]

So why would one need a 4 or 5 wt. to fish a trickle?
How big do those trickle fish get-2,3 pounds?
Sorry Tim but I am with Steve.lol
I loved my 5 foot 2 wt. small stream rod and used it quite a bit in montana,even on Armstrong creek before it became a fee stream.TETO

 

[TimMurphy]

pete41 wrote:
So why would one need a 4 or 5 wt. to fish a trickle?
How big do those trickle fish get-2,3 pounds?
Sorry Tim but I am with Steve.lol
I loved my 5 foot 2 wt. small stream rod and used it quite a bit in montana,even on Armstrong creek before it became a fee stream.TETO

Dear Pete,

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying the fact that you are fishing a small stream for small fish is not the point.

Before there were 1, 2, 3, or 4 weights readily available people fished for brook trout and caught the crap out of them.

Because they knew how to fish with the tackle they had.

A 7 weight isn't a handicap for brookie fishing if you have some modest skills. It might not be the most exhiliarating fishing out there, but it can be very easily done.

That's the point I'm making.

It's not the saw, it's the sawyer.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[gfen]

I also think what you're trying to say is that while it may be more pleasurable on a light rod (I, for one, look forward to summertime 1wt action), its not neccessary, and a light willowy rod lacks the power to punch your fly out through small places, thus the requirements put forth by pcray (and several other competent small water guys here) that short, faster, mid weight (ie, 6-7' 5wts) are the way to go.

 

[pete41]

I agree with that but I loved small rods since I started when they were hot-Shenck and Koch were pushing them.:}
Mr.Gfen interjected-lol
Since I have long since been relegated to the plastic water bottle pile I will demur to the younger gen.
{still smile at the 11 foot nymph rods for ten foot streams{cane poles}].

 

[gfen]

I haven't wrapped my head around short, but I like light. Man, I love light, full flexing rods.

 

[TimMurphy]

pete41 wrote:
I agree with that but I loved small rods since I started when they were hot-Shenk and Koch were pushing them.:}

Dear Pete,

I remember reading about them, the ultralight trout rods, and the guys in the Cumberland Valley using them.

That was back when the PA Angler was still published in black and white and on magazine stock only slightly upgraded from newsprint. ;-)

I like using my 1, 2, and 3 weights too. But in reality they don't catch any more fish for me than my 7 1/2 foot 5 weight does.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[pcray1231]

Dear Pete and Steve,

The heavier line weights and faster rods have nothing whatsoever to do with the fish themselves. The stiffer rod isn't for fighting fish. As Tim Murphy says, the fish are dumb, and if you get a fly to them, it makes not one iota of difference whether it was thrown on a 5 wt or a 2 wt, and they're small, so in fighting them, likewise it makes not one iota of difference.

The key is getting a fly to them before getting so close as to spook them. Now, skill is still far more important than equipment, but if you do look for an advantage in equipment, it's in casting. Distance in tight places is the name of the game, all of the equipment, and all of the skill of the angler, is geared towards this end. And when I say tight places, we're talking streams that you can jump across, in a tunnel of rhododendron or other such brush.

You have to cast through some small spaces, under overhanging limbs, etc. And all this with no backcast. Tight loops help. Thats my whole point. A rod doesn't have to be overly "powerful" in the distance casting sense, but it should be "punchy", i.e. capable of throwing tight loops on short casts without much motion to make it happen.

For what its worth, my rod for these streams is a 4/5 wt, and I load it with 6 wt line. There is absolutely no question that such an approach has allowed me to catch some fish I wouldn't have otherwise been able to catch.

 

[Fishidiot]

Make sure whatever rod you select is a four or five piece outfit. Obviously, you're likely to be doing some hiking so think about how you'll pack your rod tube.

 

[stevehalupka]

dear tim,

Though I find your detailed posts (books), very intuitive, perhaps you may have found a little more about me prior to making such a statement. Prior to having the money in college, I fished every stream w. a 5 wt. Though it does have its place, fishing even streamers where a small rod isn't needed, it will let you fish stretches you CAN'T with a 5 wt. Unless you're desperate and roll casting subsurface flies.

Regards,

Steve

 

[stevehalupka]

cray,

I could fish any stream you put me on, besides the yough or larger streams, with my 2wt. I can cast just as far with as I can my five wt. i accredit that to a good stiff build, which is why I suggested the OP get a cheap, stiff blank, such as an rx6.. My friend also reinforced the blank in certain ways to make it stiff.