scott rods

[metalhead]

any experience,good or bad with the 15 ft 9 weight or 13 ft 8 weight???

[loco_alto]

I bought, fished, and sold the 13' #8. It was smooth casting but mushy, lacked sufficient recoil. I replaced it with a new model Sage 7136-4 that I absolutely love.

No experience with the 15' #9.

[wrke]

I have the arc 1509 and think it a wonderful rod. Very powerful yet fishes close and far. Although I fish primarily full floaters (summer steelhead, atlantic salmon) I have friends that says it handles tips very well.
bill

[Rick J]

You should have gotten the Scott 12'8" 7 wt or the 15' 9 wt. No mushiness here. These two rods are really awsome fishing tools!

[spey_bubba]

hello metalhead

the 1509 and the 1308 are quite different from each other; the 1308 is a fuller flexing, softer "classic" spey action, similar to the 1409, whereas the 1287 and 1509 are quite similar in action ("progressive": stiffer butt sections, greater flex progressively with more rod loading = more versatile). all have a unique "scott" feel.

the progressive action rods (1287 and 1509) may feel stiffer initially until you get the hang of them, and are generally favored by more advanced casters. they perform short or long (or verrrrrry long, as lastcaststeve can demonstrate), but i like them for their versatility and forgiving nature, they also fit my casting style, although underhand casters like scott o'donnell love them too.

on another thread in this tackle section, several have voiced their opinions on the 1287 and 1509...

i know all these rods very well (disclosure: i am on the scott pro staff). i think it boils down to whether you prefer a deeper flexing rod or a modern progressive action...