8150-4 vs 7136-4 - Spey Pages
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
post #1 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-09-2000, 11:44 PM Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: BruceDate: 2/9/2000 8:44 PM
Just wondering what the thoughts are on these rods, compared to each other in distance cast and feel of cast, and feel while having a fish on. 
ISC Archives is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-10-2000, 12:48 AM Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: DanaDate: 2/9/2000 9:48 PM
Hi Bruce!

I can't speak to the issue of playing a fish on the 8150, but I have fished the 7136 on the Deschutes, Thompson and the Dean, and have cast both rods, so here's my 2 cents worth:

As far the casting is concerned, I find that the 7136 casts like the 9140-4--a little on the "slower" or "softer" side of medium, while the 8150 seems more like a true medium action, similar to the feel of the 10150-4.

With a fish on the 7136, you certainly know it--a good-sized steelhead seems to be attached to your arm instead of the rod! Because it is a softer rod, it takes a very deep set when playing a fish, and one needs to be very aware of this and use the rod to best advantage by keeping lots of side-pressure on a fish and making sure that you keep a good, smooth, deep bend in the rod throughout the fight, otherwise there is a risk of "over-playing" a fish. Though I have taken steelhead to 18# on this rod, I wouldn't recommend it for big fish in big water--the 8150 is probably a better bet
ISC Archives is offline  
post #3 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-10-2000, 12:50 AM Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: DanaDate: 2/9/2000 9:50 PM
Missed a point about distance, which you also asked about:

because the 8150 is 1-1/2' longer than the 7136, everything else being equal, you can cast farther with that rod.
ISC Archives is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #4 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-10-2000, 02:16 AM Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: Per StadighDate: 2/9/2000 11:16 PM


I had a 7136-4 but never really liked it. Guess it was too soft for my way of casting as indeed the 1410-4 is. The 8150-4' on the other hand, is a rod I like a lot.  (For the line concious I use a head of 43' Cortland 444DT10F with 35# Flatbeam .)

For me it is a perfect tool for fine to medium greased line. I have caught Atlantics up to 23 pounds on it - but really prefer a somewhat sturdier rod for larger fish. When catch&releasing the realtive softness adds too much fightning time for me to feel good.

Where I fish on the Dee in Scotland (on the beat opposite Wood's Cairnton) it is perfect. Already in April we use long thin (~8 lb) leaders and small (6-10 doubles). The length gives one a wonderful command over the water. Only on really windy days I pick a crisper rod. The Dee "springers" normally are between 8-12 lb which is a perfect size for that rod.

Gosh this makes me longing for a river!!



ISC Archives is offline  
post #5 of 5 (permalink) Old 03-14-2000, 06:13 AM Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,411
Originator: bubbaDate: 3/14/2000 3:13 AM
hi. i'm new to this group, but it looks like a great one. thanks dana.

i have fished both the 7136 and 8150 extensively, mostly with lines of my own design, on the deschutes. the 7136 is a lovely little rod. i think it is better for those who like carrying a longer line, as it's slow action really doesn't lend itself to shooting line very well. i think it is a little too flexible into the handle (you can hear the cork creaking!), but i was fishing pretty long cast (93', not including leader)... with larger or really hot fish, i think the rod definitely needs a stripping guide closer to the handle. it does change of direction casts beautifully, and, aside from a relatively large shock dimple, can certianly cast a long line (depending on your style). it is good for developing the feel of loading the butt of the rod, something that is more difficult to learn with faster action rods.

the 8150 is quite a bit heavier than the 7136 (it weighs more than the 9140) and is quite a different rod altogether. it is definitely stiffer in the butt, with the kick-point about 50% up the rod (the 7136 feels like it's kickpoint is about 40% up the rod), and a stiffer tip. no doubt the distance potential is greater, but i thought it a bit much for the average deschutes fish. it would be a lovely grease line rod for clear days on the sauk or skagit, and i think it would be ideal for the bulkley. it handles tips quite well, and i was fishing 95-98' of line very comfortably. because it's faster in action, it casts a tighter loop, better in the wind than the 7136. it does handle 8 weight range sink tips nicely. if i had my druthers, however, i think the 9140 is a better rod overall (but i tend to like slower "touchy-feely" rods)...

good luck in your choice... basically i think it will come down to what your particular casting style is... if you enjoy carrying longer lines and use the single spey and snake/spiral roll a lot, you'll like the 7136. if you're a windcutter/shooting head double spey guy, you'll probably like the 8150 better.
ISC Archives is offline  

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Spey Pages forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Linear Mode
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome