Spey Pages banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hello.

Whenever possible, I fish with a 15' 9wt. It is the time (chance, opportunity, rejoice!) to get a new one.

I am now standing between Scott T3H 1509 and Burkheimer 8152. The latter is supposed to be an 8/9, which as a line rating sounds fine to me. I primarily cast longer lines (from 66' upwards), with an occasional full sinker thrown in when I feel adventurous or desperate. I now have an T2H 1509, which I have liked quite a bit, but which is starting to give up on me.

Any opinions? I will not be able to try them (both, at least).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
501 Posts
The 8152 is a 7/8.

Cheers,


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I do not think so. Only because it cast nicely longer WA/FF 7/8 marked as wt. 7/8 at 60' does not make it 7/8 rod. WA/FF wt. 8/9 is marked as 8/9 at 620 gr and rod handles it very well, so do an older Delta Long 8/9 640 gr/63'/

From line weight/length and power CFB 8152-4 is a heavy 8/9 rod. ( wt. 8.7 - 8.8 )

CFB 8142-3 is a light 8/9 rod ( wt. 8.4) , while 8139-4 is a solid wt.8 rod. ( wt. 8.0)

The same with Scandinavian heads.

Nextcast rating is very strange

For me it is relative comparison of line/head weight distribution with taper and overall length.
 

·
Hacker
Joined
·
570 Posts
I would give Poppy a buzz, he knows the 8152 as well as anyone. I can tell you what lines I use, but I relied on advice from Poppy and Bruce for those. Burkheimer, Meiser, Gaelforce, Bruce and Walker, etc.... There are some great 14 - 16' rods there that like to toss long lines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I would give Poppy a buzz, he knows the 8152 as well as anyone. I can tell you what lines I use, but I relied on advice from Poppy and Bruce for those. Burkheimer, Meiser, Gaelforce, Bruce and Walker, etc.... There are some great 14 - 16' rods there that like to toss long lines.
This is a tempting idea, but over here the end result would be the opposite of local.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
I haven't cast the T3H but I've cast the 8152 lots. It's a great rod. It casts a NC FF/WA 7/8 really well. The 8/9 also works but I feel it overloads the rod. Many guys I know with that rod prefer the NC FF/WA70 lines at 7/8 for their long belly. Also, it works really well with the Bridge Mainstem 7/8 line. The MS 7/8 comes in at 56' at 630 grains. Really good turnover at long distances. I find the NC lines at long distances get really squiggly and turnover isn't as strong unless you get it everything perfect. If you're casting 100' or so either line is fine, if you start getting over 120' then unless your technique is really solid, the MS gets better turnover more consistently versus the NC lines.
 

·
Hacker
Joined
·
570 Posts
I haven't cast the T3H but I've cast the 8152 lots. It's a great rod. It casts a NC FF/WA 7/8 really well. The 8/9 also works but I feel it overloads the rod. Many guys I know with that rod prefer the NC FF/WA70 lines at 7/8 for their long belly. Also, it works really well with the Bridge Mainstem 7/8 line. The MS 7/8 comes in at 56' at 630 grains. Really good turnover at long distances. I find the NC lines at long distances get really squiggly and turnover isn't as strong unless you get it everything perfect. If you're casting 100' or so either line is fine, if you start getting over 120' then unless your technique is really solid, the MS gets better turnover more consistently versus the NC lines.
I use the Gaelforce Equilizer 8/9 at 63' and 708 gr, or the Gaelforce Equilizer 9/10 at 54' and 585 gr for the 8152. Great lines. Have not tried the lines from Bridge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
15' 9(ish) weights: Scott T3H & Burkheimer

I’m sticking with 7/8.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
I haven't cast the T3H but I've cast the 8152 lots. It's a great rod. It casts a NC FF/WA 7/8 really well. The 8/9 also works but I feel it overloads the rod. Many guys I know with that rod prefer the NC FF/WA70 lines at 7/8 for their long belly. Also, it works really well with the Bridge Mainstem 7/8 line. The MS 7/8 comes in at 56' at 630 grains. Really good turnover at long distances. I find the NC lines at long distances get really squiggly and turnover isn't as strong unless you get it everything perfect. If you're casting 100' or so either line is fine, if you start getting over 120' then unless your technique is really solid, the MS gets better turnover more consistently versus the NC lines.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
loco alto!
Joined
·
2,977 Posts
For the 8152, based on old standard lines like the Airflo Delta/DeltaLong or SA short-mid lines (both of which carried "middle of the road" US line ratings), the 8152 can be considered a solid 8 wt. Several posts above show that lines rated 7/8 (Nextcast) up to 9/10 (Gaelforce) can work equally well on the 8152. I bet it'd cast an XLT 6/7 with the whole head out, too. The 8152 has a wide grain window, but not 5 line weights (6/7/8/9/10) - that huge span is in good part a lack of standardization in longer line ratings. Because of that, it doesn't make sense to use longer spey line ratings to indicate what weight should be printed on a rod.

To the original poster's question, the 8152 can sometimes feel stronger than its 8 wt rating by virtue of its relatively strong and stable tip section, which gives a sense of control normally associated with heavier rod ratings. On the other hand, the rod's deep flex can give a sense of loading up and feel without piling on excessive grains, as associated with lighter rod ratings. How one feels about that is an individual thing, perceiving and responding to load, but I think an 8 wt rating lies at the middle of it all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
For the 8152, based on old standard lines like the Airflo Delta/DeltaLong or SA short-mid lines (both of which carried "middle of the road" US line ratings), the 8152 can be considered a solid 8 wt. Several posts above show that lines rated 7/8 (Nextcast) up to 9/10 (Gaelforce) can work equally well on the 8152. I bet it'd cast an XLT 6/7 with the whole head out, too. The 8152 has a wide grain window, but not 5 line weights (6/7/8/9/10) - that huge span is in good part a lack of standardization in longer line ratings. Because of that, it doesn't make sense to use longer spey line ratings to indicate what weight should be printed on a rod.

To the original poster's question, the 8152 can sometimes feel stronger than its 8 wt rating by virtue of its relatively strong and stable tip section, which gives a sense of control normally associated with heavier rod ratings. On the other hand, the rod's deep flex can give a sense of loading up and feel without piling on excessive grains, as associated with lighter rod ratings. How one feels about that is an individual thing, perceiving and responding to load, but I think an 8 wt rating lies at the middle of it all.
Thank you very much for this informative response. Scott it is then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Laker

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
I have both of those rods, and in all honesty, I don't think you can go wrong with either of them. They are both great.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top