Bit of an 'idiots guide' needed. So I've fished for a number of years. I want to be able to keep my rod collection lean and also would like to focus a bit more on leisure carp day fishing. So, the question is do I really need these high test curve rods? - by high I'm thinking 2.75kg+ TC. I've seen guys land 15lb carp on match gear (& I've landed 9lb on old glass swing-tip) - so if I'm excluding long range carping (I'm not a big water fan in any case - too daunting) I'm wondering if 2x pairs of rods, like barbel rods/ light carp - which can cast 3-5oz, at 1.75/ 2.25 maybe 2.5 test curve would do the trick? I don't want rods that I will loose the fun of smaller fish because the are too powerful, and ones that I can use on the river or lake for larger course too.
Anyone got any views on this?

In reply to Post #1
Everyone just likes using telegraph poles with 50mm eyes to fish the margins - they then convince themselves that the gear is lovely to play fish on.
On a serious note of the above - as you say you only need high t/c rods for casting generally (although the action of the rod is also vital). For many, if you can only justify one set of rods then they will buy distance tools as they can then use these to fish any range. A rod of about 2lb t/c will be fine to land any carp when matched with a suitable line and reel. It will be more enjoyable to play fish on too, particularly if they are smaller fish.

In reply to Post #1
Get 1lb test rods

mk 1 Terry hearn rods 2,9tc..mine are battered and bruised but I wouldn't swap for anything else.

In reply to Post #1
It's the action of the rod you want to look at test curve is only half the story

High test curves as a general rule are for casting a long way, those same rods won't apply adequate pressure a lot of the time even though it feels like you're invincible. The laws of physics are against you with a long rod when applying pressure.
That's not to say a lower tc is more powerful, it's not that simple. But whatever bends to become shorter under load and doesn't blow up will be the most powerful.
I have a spinning rod that's 7' and about 5lb tc, it would eat a distance rod for breakfast but is the least enjoyable rod to catch fish below about 50lb I could imagine.

In reply to Post #1
IMO if you don't have to cast huge distances then use the lightest test curve you are happy with for the carp you are targeting. The vast majority of carp I have caught up to 40lb and from waters of 3 or 4 acres or less have been caught on 2 1/4 lb test curve rods. Bend through to the butt and DON'T cause hook pulls

If I have to potentially cast over 60-80 yards would I change to 2 3/4lb rods and then 3 1/2 lb test curve rods when the potential for having to cast over 100 yards is there. With each step up in test curve the enjoyment of playing the fish decreases.

Just my opinion and others may disagree.

In reply to Post #3

In reply to Post #6
This is what I was thinking, likewise I've got a 10' bass lure rod, it's through action, 3.5tc tc & can buzz an 8oz lure 100+ yards & pull lure or lure + sea fish (& they can really scrap) back through strong surf. So not having done much carp fishing I was wondering the logic of high tc except where you are trying to chuck a lot of weight a long way in the hope of big fish.

In reply to Post #7
Useful info, follows my thinking. Thanks. So finding a good through action rod about 2 - 2.25lb TC looks like the way to go for me

In reply to Post #1
Completely agree with Paul on Post#7, I use 2lb test curve rods from the 1980's for 95% of my fishing, will chuck up to 100 yards, and when I need to, I have 3lb test curve rods for > 100 yards. But my 1980's Armalites are my go to rods, they are the business, bend through to the butt and beyond, I love them. They have a 25mm butt ring, 9 rings in total (very unfashionable). Whereas my 3lb test curve "modern" Greys rods with 50mm butt rings I hate really, but needs must sometimes.

So I would defo go for light test curve through action rods.

I use some CTX 2.5 tc for everything, I fish small ponds right up to 80 plus acre ressis,I catch ,and the rods bend lovely,what more do you need.

In another lifetime, I'd love a set of Mk1 armalites,my lad has a set I bought for him...lol..

High tc rods,...no fun,despite those owning them say they play fish nicely,c'mon they really don't do they..its all subjective,but seeing a rod bent right over,with the angler playing a fish skillfully is a great sight,not winching em in on a broomhandle and mangle for a reel..

In reply to Post #12
Totally agree.

Keep an eye out on ebay for some Mk 1 Armalites. Mine are Mk 1's which I've had from new in 1987 (rebuilt recently though), but I picked up 3 x Mk 2's for my lad for £120, an absolute bargain.

I have a set of Century NG in 2.75lb these are magnificent rods with the important Action a 12lb carp or barbel will feel great

as have ALL my big fish with an English 50 and a few French ones with my PB French of 68lb all on these rods

AND YET a small double figure carp is a joy to play

In reply to Post #1
Imagine your fishing rod as a tool for a job....after all you wouldn't use a sledgehammer to knock a panel pin in would you.

I don't think there is one rod that does everything...not by a long chalk.

I have my carp rods down to 2 sets...2.75tc for the majority of situations and 3.75tc for higher range work of over 120 yds and for fishing with pva bags.

The more through action a rod has the more enjoyment when you actually catch a fish plus ironically you can exert more pressure on the fish too...the vast majority of match fishing style rods are through action and matchmen land loads of 12lb to 15lb carp ( which are the hardest fighting ones imo ) in a single 5 hr match.

Remember people like Kevin Nash et al are very very rich men off the back of selling you stuff that you don't need

In reply to Post #15
I have a set of torrix customs 10' and a set of dwarf 6' for my canal or small water fishing as I don't need to cast far,the dwarfs are ideal if I travel light like after work or on bus or my bike in the summer.

I have a mate who tells me he hi s 3.5 rods are great all rounders, even for margin fishing.

I tell him that he hasn't tried the ES 2.75 rods then.

In reply to Post #17
I bet your friend ,he lands em real fast,with a tc,like that fishing close in,I got this mental picture now of someone swinging a roach to hand,and some carper swinging a 20 in ,on his 4lb tc margin rod..

Lol...oh dear..!!

Don't worry there's only so much milk in a cow before needing to move to the next, soon as the carp tackle fashion dictatorship says so the next cow for milking will be low test curves and the circle starts again.

In reply to Post #19
I think your right as well..

What's the saying'nothing new under the sun'

In reply to Post #1
Balanced set up, light rods small reels , caught big carp on 12 oz test curve tench rods easy, but if your doing bag work at short range up it a bit,

In reply to Post #1
I firmly believe my rods, Accurix 2.75lb will land any carp that swims. The higher TC's are simply for range, that is all.

I cant imagine fishing a water where these rods aren't up to it, ie, requiring a cast of 100yards plus, if that was the case id find another way of doing it or find a different water.

I wish I had got the 2.5lb tbh.

Plus 50mm ringing looks a right barsteward.

In reply to Post #22
I feel the same about my 2.75 C2s (was a toss up between them and the accurix). If I ever feel I really need to fish at long range I'd just buy a lake reaper bait boat for the price of another rod.

Most of my fish come out of the margains anyway, sometimes the obsession with distance baffles me, everyone casting 150yds to the same 3ft deep bar when it's also 3ft deep a rod length out with no angling pressure. In my eyes the margins are the biggest feature in any lake and the first place I'll target (unless it's the middle of winter).

Post's 22 and 23,same,if I can't reach em,I'll just accept it,I'm not going to worry ,or gaze up at the Sky ,rolling my eyes..


Its time people realised that angling is far more than just catching fish ,that's only a part of it...albeit a nice part..

I've met lots of people,people in my family even with the latest super duper uber nanovax c19,rocket launcher rods,get asked,what do I think ?..

But being polite I say nice ,or similar,but really I'm thinking why,why,why,..lol

Each to their own ...I guess...

In reply to Post #22
You have,nt got 50mm on accurix have you ? The 2.5lb are a gem.

In reply to Post #1
The most enjoyable rods I've ever owned were a set of Chub Outkast "Smallwaters" at 11' and 2.25tc. Light as a feather, terrific action and beautiful to cast with. They were a pleasure to use.
I've now got a set of FreeSpirit "TS" 11' 2.75tc and these are superb for the type of fishing I do. I only changed because I am now regularly fishing a venue with a lot more snags so wanted slightly beefier rods to help me out if I got into trouble.
I never fish big waters, and have no intention of doing so. Small, intimate venues are where I prefer to spend my time, so I don't need to be luzzing heavy weights/baits 100 yards or more.
I always like to fish as light as I can.

In reply to Post #25
No lol. Sorry, that came across utterly wrong.

I just mean in general, I understand the reason for 50's however in terms of casting, I just think they look awful.

I saw a 50 ring set on some 10 footers the other day, wtf?!!

In reply to Post #27
10 ft is the new 12 ft, I'm told

Much more fun with lighter rods rather than a pair of Horizon Spankers

In my view it's a case of it's better to be over gunned than under gunned. If there in the margin great if there 150 yards out then so be it. But I need to fish where I see them so it's 3.5TC most of the time

In reply to Post #27
Absolutely no need for 50s on any rod .

There is nothing as satisfying as playing a carp on say a floater rod or something around that test curve, give them a fighting chance but ultimately it's how you play them out whatever test, although with a poker you don't get that same feeling for me.

My thoughts are, at the moment lol, a 3 1/4lb test rod ( lots of different actions, I understand) is a perfect all-round rod and the main reason, I use 15lb line always and I can handle 95% of fishing situations other than long range, add a leader, bit further, more again, casting tool, low diameter mainlines, shockleaders and long range. There are times when you are over gunned, but who cares (I've had LOADS of rods and sets in the past)

Out and out fishing, no PVA bags a 2lb test is a nice rod for me, add more distance or lead size and you are upping the test, start with a golf ball sized PVA bag and your reaching the limit with a lot of 3lb test curve rods unless it's a nice through / absorbing action. A stick and 15lb line is a about the limit for this strain line for me and that is one of the concluding factors, amongst lead size used, rod action and the anglers casting ability. I can crack off with a 2oz lead and 15lb line quite easily if I wanted to

I have two sets of Torrix 2.5 and 3.25 TC both capable of 110 yards the difference is single baits or PVA bags.

The 2.5s are a joy to use and I have a set of ISOs on them however because I have two sets I can afford to use 15lb line on them and limited my distance to 80-90 yards

The 3.25 have a set of 6k tourneys with 18lb line.

Prior to the above I originally had a set of 2.75 which after 10 year of use I blow one up casting PVA mesh bags so decided to get the larger TC Torrix to cover all my needs, foolishly though I had 50mm ringing. After that I was very fortunate to be able get the 2.5lb TCs

If I could only have one set of rods it would be the 3.25 lb Tc with 40mm ringing and ISOs

In reply to Post #31
Agreed about the 50mm sadly I have them on my rods and prefer the 6k Tourneys over the ISOs, I think it's because of the rings wish I'd gone for 40mm oh well bit of a fad several years ago.

In reply to Post #30
True

In reply to Post #33
Ive got the 3.25s with 40mm, don't like 50mm either, but trust me, they are still a 'plank of a blank'. But for bags, clearly a good choice.
Mine sit in the loft, waiting for their yearly outing to france, I've a set of free spirit 2.75s, really like them, and yes 40mm.

In reply to Post #31
Not even a distance rod??

In reply to Post #37
Not for the average person who is probably so far away from getting the best out of their blank that friction on the first guide is irrelevant. I'm sure TE said something on a video along the lines of ‘every record I've cast has been with 50s' .. you're just not creating that lead speed with a baited rig's drag that'll far outweigh the guide size

In reply to Post #37
No

Seems to be a misconception that test curve dictates how far a rod will cast. Its the action of the rod that dictates that, whether it is through action right up to an ultra fast taper.

My rods are 3lb through action, actually they a traditional ringed pike rod designed to cast heavy deadbaits without tearing the hooks out of a soft bait. They have a fantastic playing action and bend almost to the butt which is when I can really bend into a fish to stop it getting into snags but the soft action helps stop hook pulls. They are in fact the best carp rods that I have had since the '80s.

But when it comes to casting, beyond about 80 yards, with a 2 - 4oz lead and a stick mix, they are useless as they lack the power, so then I bring out my 3lb fast taper rods which are also better at picking up the line at a good distance to help striking.

But also, if I use my 3lb fast taper rods close in and fishing just beyond an underarm flick and have to cast overhead, they are useless. They are like casting with a stiff poker and what bend I get in the tip has enough power to send the lead flying and almost straight away have to kill the cast before it goes to far. Drop down to a 2oz lead or lighter, and its even worse as the rod hardly bends at all and the lead can easily fly to the right or left. Basically, accuracy and precision is compromised.

Also I hear many times from others who use 3lb TC rods who only fish close in, how many hook pulls they suffer and with my 3lb through action rods, its a rarity. I think its about 2 in the past three years.

Mk1 Armalite 2.25 for small waters. They just feel spot on with a bait runner reel. They will land any carp swimming in the UK.

12' 9' 3.25 Vertex's for bigger waters and longer distance. I find these probably as near to the all round rod as they are a super slim blank; 40 mil ringing, with an action that instills confidence playing fish under the tip - something claimed by many rod manufacturers but seldom achieved. The longer length makes them feel nicely balanced with a big pit type reel. I doubt I'd use any other rod in a 3.25 TC maybe with the exception of the original NG's.

Flogged my 3.5 50 mil rung Hi S rods, didn't like them at all and they were moved on after a year. I'll admit I fell for the hype and was left disappointed and out of pocket

In reply to Post #39
If 50mm ringing is not required for distance fishing why has every world record that has been cast 50mm ringing?.

In reply to Post #28
I'm using 10ft Harrison Aviators 2 3/4 tc and an absolute joy of a rod casting max 70 yards on syndicate and I'm sure the butt ring is 30mm ?? had carp 32+ this year on them and superb, have 12ft and 13ft Free Spirit rods but I'm defo over gunned if on my syndicate as followed the flock for years, the 10ft has changed my thoughts on carp fishing and actually enjoy using them

In reply to Post #42
No bait or rig on a tournament casting rod , terry would cast a baited rig as far with a 40ml as he would with a 50ml, i will bet he would cast further with a baited 30ml guide than most would with a 50ml unbaited rod.And not every record has been cast with 50ml ringing.

In reply to Post #44
Bait or no bait makes no difference if the rods are being cast the same. If it made little difference there would be a mixture of guides that hold record casts. 50mm make a difference that's for sure 100%

In reply to Post #45
Ok whatever you say

In reply to Post #45
The drag created by the rig will slow the lead down and you actually want some friction from the guides to stop it spilling line off the spool, as the lead loses speed so must the line spill or you'll crack off

It's not what I say. It's what record holders say.

In reply to Post #45
Last time time I looked one man held the majority of world records for distance casting with both fixed spool and multiplier. Fixed spool 256.96 metres with 125g lead, further with 150g lead and multiplier.

In reply to Post #47
Need to be precise here. You will have problems if the line comes off the spool faster than it is pulled through the rings. It may well lead to a crack off, but not necessarily. On a multiplier you will get what was once called a birds nest and now appears to be called a blow up, tangled loops of line still on the spool. With a fixed spool a big mess of line tries to pass through the rod rings and sometimes does, but mostly catches on a ring. You are quite right these situations often lead to crack offs. They are not caused by the difference between a 40 or 50mm butt ring.
Leaving braid and multipliers out of this for now, if you load a good quality mono onto a good quality fixed spool reel as it comes from the manufacturer and leave a 2mm lip of spool above the line you will very rarely, if ever, have casting tangles and the ensuing crack offs.
If you are going to tune a reel for distance casting it stops being a reliable simple tool and becomes a twitchy, sensitive liability that needs lots of constant TLC. Thing I see most is heavily overloaded spools leading to line behind the spool and Crack offs for no benefit to the angler.

In reply to Post #50
Yes the friction created by the guides combined with under filling the spool slightly is compensation because the lead will be slowed by the drag of a baited rig. Multipliers have the luxury of a brake, which can overrun obviously, but fixed spools are just waiting to chuck their guts over the spool lip.
The original reason for the post is that people always compare casting records to fishing and they aren't the same thing. This is just my reason for 50s, or even 40s being unnecessary on a fishing rod

In reply to Post #51
I think I read somewhere that TE reckons 50's might get him an extra yard or two with baited rigs, but not enough to be significant compared to 40's.

Personally I hate 50's. They look horrible and are so big i'd be bound to smash them all the time. 40's for me every time.

In reply to Post #51
It's interesting how many beach casters are moving towards a continental setup whereby the rods used are 13-15ft long with small eyes and setup for fixed spools. I have a pair that have 20mm buttrings to a 12mm tip. They will cast 7oz leads plus baits easily.

50s are good for heavy flurocarbon.

In reply to Post #42
technic id guess. put me on same rod and reel as who ever broke any casting record then put them on my Terry hearns and tourneys they would still beat me. 50 mm butts in carping is just a fashion cause of all the big pit reels around now. ss3000s came over here yrs ago. (nashy hare field days} no 50 mm butts around then if I'm correct.

In reply to Post #53
I believe most of them use braid which is fine with smaller eyes on the rod.

In reply to Post #55

In reply to Post #56
Razorback, who hasn't posted for a while, has Kev Baines big snipers with 30s and can cast a lead 180+ with mono. So except for tournament casting or heavy fluoro as stated, big guides act only as a hindrance but do slow down the fast blanks they are fitted to and make them easier to handle, albeit heavier

In reply to Post #58
Wasting your breath mate, not a week goes by without me telling people how they will bugger up a blank with hooped earings !

In reply to Post #59
It's bizarre. I get it that tournament casters want no friction etc. (Aren't these records done with spod rods?) But the detrimental effect of weight and torque is too much for a fishing rod. A properly built 2.5 or 2.75 would do pretty much everything people's 3.5s do and be lighter.
Pretty sure people were casting into the 180s years ago with old 2.75 amorphous rods, it isn't that the blanks were better than now. It's that rod building/understanding has gone backwards.
Maybe it's just me, but you see a thread where somebody wants a rod to fish within 100-120 yards of the bank and 90% or replies will suggest 3.5lb rods.
Don't bream anglers fish at 100 yards with Avon rods

In reply to Post #60
T.e broke his records with a spod rod, i was fishing at 110yds on lochmaben for bream in the 80s with north western 1.75 t.c rods 25mm butt guides .

In reply to Post #56
True but not all. I use 15lb sensor with a shock leader on mine. They will cast heavy leads far further than the majority of carp rods.

In reply to Post #62
Because people follow fashion. When i started a 2.75 rod was considered long range. Now people are buy 10 foot 3.5 scopes and calling them all rounders. They just don't understand them. I have my rods for the uk which are 11 foot 2.5 baby ballistas and I would happily take them to any water. I'm no caster and could hit probably 100 yards at most with these. That's as far as i like to fish. Then have some 3.5's for france, which to be honest if i can get away with the baby ballistas i don't use.

In reply to Post #61
Lol. I rest my case

In reply to Post #51
That's the real point. Distance/tournament casting and the techniques involved are not particularly helpful for angling in 95% of situations. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and leads to frustration and disaster and a great deal of expense. If you wish to be a distance caster allow for years of coaching, practice and experimenting and in the end it will give you an edge in a few specific big venues.
Or get a reasonable set of kit and enjoy your angling without tangles or crack offs. Fish accurately from 0-100m with confidence. You won't need braid on your spod rod, lots of cracked off spods/spombs avoided. What's not to like.
Oh! and catch lots of fish.
Go to "badangling" tournament casting.

In reply to Post #65
Using heavy braid straight through seems to eradicate 99% of braid related **** ups.

I wanted a spod rod with 40mm guides but in the end it had to be 50s as the lead times were too long.
I don't really get the 'less friction' argument for 50s, surely it's the contact area of the line that determines that. All 50s seem to do is let the cluster **** grab a guide further up the blank

In reply to Post #5
Correct, test curve means very little, for example, I have 12ft 3.5lb pike rods and 12ft 3.5 test hi s ER's... utterly different rods. For most carp fishing, distance aside, you want a medium action rod, most are rated around the 3lb tc mark. I use Free Spirit ES (2 3/4lb)... does make me laugh when you see these muppets margin fishing with long range rods kitted out with 50mm butt rings or worst still, floater fishing with them

In reply to Post #22
I've got a pair of Accurix 2.75. They are pokers to me and I only use them at range on big waters. Playing fish on them isn't as nice as my others, which are Ballista Slims 2.75 and Baby Ballistas 2.5.
Built them myself and all of them have 30mm butt rings, then 20, 16, 12, 10, 10, 10 and a 10 tip. The Baby's have one less 10. They look and feel amazing with this ringing, even the Accurix. They also have handles, Duplon abbreviated and full cork on the Baby's. The duplon below the reel seat is 5.5", a short flare above the reel seat and a 4.5" flare at the butt end.
A few truths.
You don't 50mm, or even 40mm butt rings, with just 5 or 6 rings. On the field, it'll give you a few more yards but in a fishing situation there's little difference, apart from killing the feel and balance of the rod.
A handle is more comfortable than just a plain reel seat. The tackle companies created this fashion to get costs down - no handle, few rings, quicker to build and charge more = more profit.
Rods feel better with 4000 and 6000 size reels and there's little difference in casting in most fishing situations.
Half a ton of high build epoxy on the whippings isn't necessary and looks ugly.
You don't need heavy leads for most situations. My standard is 1.5oz, with 2 or 2.5oz on the Accurix at range. One water I fish has a lead limit of 1oz and needs to be fished at 40 to 70 yards. With 8lb line, a shock leader and a stringer they cast fine, the fish self-hook easily and bolt like crazy.
Blank action and material is often more important than test curve and slower rods will cast as far as fast rods in the right hands. Slower and softer rods cause less hook pulls and less damage to the carp's mouth. You can stop a fish in its tracks with a slower action rod and tire them out quicker. Glass rods work well for this.

In reply to Post #68
I use 2.5 tc rods everywhere, I have just one set up..

I don't possess a lead heavier than 2oz,I mainly use 1.5oz

For me it's all about the playability of a rod,I'm not a bit worried about hitting the distance, what ever that is..?..so in short I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments..

To sum up,I see others using 3.5tc rods,winches for reels,on small lakes with low doubles,sure as can be the ones I mention,are slaves to the NWO,of carp angling newspeak,they don't question the narrative ,or know any better..its the equivalent of two violations in the arm,so you can work,...!..ie brainwashing in angling terms..

my 2.75 amorphous rods will do 200 yards in the right hands no bother at all ( not mine lol)

In reply to Post #70
But there's a world of a difference between an Amorphous 2.75 and say a Ballista 2.75. Do you think the Amorphous TC might have been marked down a tad?

In reply to Post #71
absolutely not NO

its all about the carbon and the wrap and the recovery speed the Amorphous has a wonderful playing action too thats why Im still using them as an alternative to my main rods Century NGs 2.75 when I want to fish in excess off 120 yards

Some great analysis of rods that are more suited to casting than they are to actual fishing

Id just like to add that a "hook pull" is really a hook rip out... consider this before trying to get a bend in your fast actioned casting brush pole...

In reply to Post #1
Id say a lot depends on what you doing, If your fishing delicately lighter test curve rods are a must, If your hefting big bags out long distance then they dont work. I also find it a chore to pull in heavy weed with lower test curve rods, even without a fish in there somewhere...
In short if you fish well the only limitations are distance with a lower t/c rod. And like some of the guys said its much more fun to catch fish on those rods.

In reply to Post #74
Agreed on the weed point, with lighter rods and less powerful reels it is a pain.