the answer is they both do! they will both throw fine on that rod. i prefer the 6/7 with an underhand stroke. a friend who also owns the rod prefers the 7/8 with a more traditional stroke. if it's possible to try them where you are, i would highly recommend it.
As BF indicated they both will do well. It well might depend on what you plan to do most of. If using it mostly as a floating line with smaller flies I think I would opt for the lighter line weight. If using it more with sink tips and heavier flies I would opt for the greater grains to help turn over tips.
Rio MS 6/7
SA spey classic 7
SA skagit 450
Rio skagit 450 -2'
and a custom Windcutter that I call a Gaspe' line. Great dry line and light tips. Head length w/ tip is 45' and weight is 550 grains. More of a scandi then skagit.
this is a versatile rod and handles many styles. Notice Lawrence S. prefers heavier lines then I do but I don't doubt for a second that the lines he likes on the rod just zing. When I cast the rod with simon for his Rio ratings we both thought it was great with a 5/6 Windcutter as well.
Lots of you are saying good things about the LS2 range. I fancy a lighter line rod as my next buy but i find it difficult here to get hold of a Scott DH to cast. I know this is going to give me a really subjective answer but how does the action and feel of the 7wt LS2 compare with say the 7wt Zaxis which i have cast. What is the action like when compared with the 13' 9wt TnT i own? I want the rod for daylight sewin fishing. It seems very acommodating considering the range of heads and full lines that you have all listed.
GPearson question--you recommend the RIO 450 -2'. Where does the 2' come off? The head, the tips you add to the head, and this I am assuming is without any cheater of any length. Will appreciate your explanation. Thanks bunches.
P.S. Your performance in Spey to Z is so lucid, clear, simple and understandable--it's great and you are to be commended for being such a fine teacher.
I have not cast the other rods you mentioned. If the new z-axis is like the old 7141 then I would say the LS2 is a lot lighter in the hand and a true 6/7 wt. were the 7141 is a 8/9 wt IMO. Typically the LS2's are not as quick as the T&T's. Sorry not much help.
Thanks a lot for the kind remarks. I chopped the 2' off of the front end of the head where you attach the tips. The only problem with that is that you lose the factory loop and need to build one. For me it was worth it but you may like it at full length. I would fish it for a while and see how you like it before you chop. The tips i fish have been around 125 grains whether 15', 12' or 9' of t14. Hope this helps.
Lee, the Sage Z 7136, to me, is not like the 7141. I find the top half is somewhat reminiscent of the old traditional 7136, but the bottom half is stouter, and doesn't flex through the cork like the old 7136. The Scott 7 feels lighter in the hand to me, in part because it is slightly shorter, and in part because the top end seems to be built with less graphite (thin walls). In a relative way, I'd say the Scott 7 feels perhaps 1/4 line weight lighter than the Sage 7, but not much. Both are fairly moderate action rods that don't wimp out in the butt.
and both of them are worlds away from your T&T, which is very very stiff in comparison.
Thanks both, when i cast the Zaxis it was with a 9wt line so i still didn't get much of an idea about what the rod was like. I did like the shorter scando type cork handles though. I am going to try and cast a Scott, maybe when i am in San Fran. My local shop seems to stock the single handers but didn't have any DH, although i would imagine that they can get them.
I would 2nd what was said earlier about Spey to Z. Its what made me buy a DH rod, i thought Way, Greg and Topher eduacted me in every style, cast beautifully and was one of the best shot DVDs i have seen. Well done all.
Both are great rods. I do better with the Ls2 while the next guy might favor the ARC. IMO, the Arc has a stiffer butt and softer tip. The LS2 is lighter in the hand by a bit and I would consider the 1287 a 7/8 while the LS2 is a 6/7.
Not much help. try to cast both at a clave sometime.
I'd second Greg's opinion on the ARC 1287 and LS2 1307. Both are stellar rods; the ARC 1287 used to be my favorite Spey rod (inch for inch) of any wiehgt (now it's the LS2 1610).
When we designed the LS2 1307, I was looking for a rod that had a little more in the tip and to have a little more "pop off the tip" feel when casting, and to be a little less butt dominated, but still fantastically light in hand. The goal was to build on the great performance of the ARC and broaden the versatility to be equally happy casting long bellies and Skagit set-ups. Hence the differences between the ARC and the LS2. Personally, although both will handle a broad range of belly lengths with similar ultimate distance potential with a long belly line like the XLT, I think the LS2 handles Skagit style set-ups better with its slightly deeper flex and stiffer tip, and the ARC is more "race car" like with shorter shooting heads.
I completely agree with Greg as well in the line weights for the rods... the ARC will handle about a half line weight heavier than the LS2.
A forum community dedicated to Spey casting, fishing, flies, and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about trails, licenses, fishing, game laws, styles, reviews, optics, accessories, classifieds, and more!