Any one actually tried them that can offer an objective view of them....?? Double barbs....Whatever next....:(
Regards Tad.
Regards Tad.
In reply to Post #1
They do exactly what they say on the packet.
A normal micro barb, and nearer the point there is a miniature "nano barb" to nail wary fish and help hold the hook in and prevent them shaking the hook free.
Good quality strong hooks, I think they are probably made by VMC.
Hook removal is no different to regular hooks.
The hook needs a much lower pull to get the nano barb in than it would take to get a normal hook pulled past the barb. The fish then will back off to dislodge the hook and then the enquiry can develop into a full on run.
https://www.carpforum.co.uk/Shared/Messages.asp?TopicID=435585
They do exactly what they say on the packet.
A normal micro barb, and nearer the point there is a miniature "nano barb" to nail wary fish and help hold the hook in and prevent them shaking the hook free.
Good quality strong hooks, I think they are probably made by VMC.
Hook removal is no different to regular hooks.
The hook needs a much lower pull to get the nano barb in than it would take to get a normal hook pulled past the barb. The fish then will back off to dislodge the hook and then the enquiry can develop into a full on run.
https://www.carpforum.co.uk/Shared/Messages.asp?TopicID=435585
In reply to Post #2
Hand sharpend tic , magic twig , 5oz lead , back lead , tight clutch 😲😅
Hand sharpend tic , magic twig , 5oz lead , back lead , tight clutch 😲😅
In reply to Post #3
Fished amongst weed, that could be the sad reality
Like a doctor once told me, if people were responsible they could issue antibiotics over the chemists counter. It's no different here and companies need to ensure their products are extremely safe or have a warning on the packets if tied up wrong because in the wrong hands, inexperienced, wrong situation or in a combination they are potentially very dangerous
The only way around this for me is good fishery management and a crystal clear set of rules in the meantime
Fished amongst weed, that could be the sad reality
Like a doctor once told me, if people were responsible they could issue antibiotics over the chemists counter. It's no different here and companies need to ensure their products are extremely safe or have a warning on the packets if tied up wrong because in the wrong hands, inexperienced, wrong situation or in a combination they are potentially very dangerous
The only way around this for me is good fishery management and a crystal clear set of rules in the meantime
In reply to Post #3
No you're wrong there, obviously need a completely loose clutch and an alarm with a dead battery.
No you're wrong there, obviously need a completely loose clutch and an alarm with a dead battery.
In reply to Post #1
I'm not sure why people are bashing these hooks so much, am I missing something? From my understanding its a nano barb right at the tip of the hook and once the fish picks up the bait and the hook point hits the mouth the nano barb goes into the mount with very little pressure, this stops fish from being able to eject the hook (which is essentially what we have always wanted from a standard barbed hook), just like it would if it had hit the lead harder and gone past a normal barb.. I'm not sure how people are seeing this as a higher risk to a normal hook? It will essentially give the same effect as a fish hooking itself on a normal hook but just quicker. Then when the rod is picked up or the fish hits the lead harder the second barb that is a micro barb goes in and the fish is hooked just as normal. If anything surely this nano barb stops hook slips where the point of the hook goes in but not up to the barb and then slips out tearing the mouth? Once the micro barb (i.e. the "standard barb") is in, the hole that is produced is larger than what the nano barb has caused so the hook is removed as easily as a standard hook. I'm not sure how this hook would be an more "dangerous" than a standard hook.
Maybe I'm missing something?
I'm not sure why people are bashing these hooks so much, am I missing something? From my understanding its a nano barb right at the tip of the hook and once the fish picks up the bait and the hook point hits the mouth the nano barb goes into the mount with very little pressure, this stops fish from being able to eject the hook (which is essentially what we have always wanted from a standard barbed hook), just like it would if it had hit the lead harder and gone past a normal barb.. I'm not sure how people are seeing this as a higher risk to a normal hook? It will essentially give the same effect as a fish hooking itself on a normal hook but just quicker. Then when the rod is picked up or the fish hits the lead harder the second barb that is a micro barb goes in and the fish is hooked just as normal. If anything surely this nano barb stops hook slips where the point of the hook goes in but not up to the barb and then slips out tearing the mouth? Once the micro barb (i.e. the "standard barb") is in, the hole that is produced is larger than what the nano barb has caused so the hook is removed as easily as a standard hook. I'm not sure how this hook would be an more "dangerous" than a standard hook.
Maybe I'm missing something?
I've no experience of these hooks but I have a opinion....no surprise there then, its not set in stone and I'm willing to learn 
I can see the theory of the nano barb but to me its sort of counter intuitive. If the Carp *****s itself on the hook only to the point of the nano barb or even just beyond it, that's the softest part of the mouth so I cant see a nano barb making much difference hold wise in that soft tissue, though it would damage it more.
However, as the nano barb will be on the deepest part of the hook to penetrate, where the mouth is also typically harder I can only see it doing more damage as a normal barb doesn't normally get that far....is it just me?
EDIT, Cant even type p.r.i.c.k with relation to hooks
I can see the theory of the nano barb but to me its sort of counter intuitive. If the Carp *****s itself on the hook only to the point of the nano barb or even just beyond it, that's the softest part of the mouth so I cant see a nano barb making much difference hold wise in that soft tissue, though it would damage it more.
However, as the nano barb will be on the deepest part of the hook to penetrate, where the mouth is also typically harder I can only see it doing more damage as a normal barb doesn't normally get that far....is it just me?
EDIT, Cant even type p.r.i.c.k with relation to hooks
In reply to Post #7
Where ever the nano barb gets a grip then the rest of the bend and the microbarb will follow as the pull increases.
It's getting that initial it of grip with only minimal pull. The table below shows how much less weight is needed to get the nano barb to penetrate and get a grip on the fish.
https://www.lukemoffatt.com/the-graviers-tic-hook
Where ever the nano barb gets a grip then the rest of the bend and the microbarb will follow as the pull increases.
It's getting that initial it of grip with only minimal pull. The table below shows how much less weight is needed to get the nano barb to penetrate and get a grip on the fish.
https://www.lukemoffatt.com/the-graviers-tic-hook
In reply to Post #8
To be fair, that's very interesting, wonder how it compares to barbless, ultimately I guess it's setting the gauge of the wire, maybe there is some mileage in a nano barb during the initial take and the fish landing rate?
To be fair, that's very interesting, wonder how it compares to barbless, ultimately I guess it's setting the gauge of the wire, maybe there is some mileage in a nano barb during the initial take and the fish landing rate?
In reply to Post #8
Can I check that's the weight required to drive the whole of the main barb home, not the nano vs the main barb on the others? Even if not it doesn't surprise me there's less weight required to drive the main barb after the nano has already created the path, bit like stepping up a drill bit.
Oddly I would have thought the total required to make the same hole would be equal so I would have thought the micros would have penetrated before the standard
I guess one barb isn't equal to the other, either in diameter or angle which could influence findings, but yes very interesting
Can I check that's the weight required to drive the whole of the main barb home, not the nano vs the main barb on the others? Even if not it doesn't surprise me there's less weight required to drive the main barb after the nano has already created the path, bit like stepping up a drill bit.
Oddly I would have thought the total required to make the same hole would be equal so I would have thought the micros would have penetrated before the standard
I guess one barb isn't equal to the other, either in diameter or angle which could influence findings, but yes very interesting
In reply to Post #10
The table of test results are from Luke Moffat''s website.
On the end section for the tic hooks shows how much weight is needed to get the nano barb to engage, and then how much force is needed for the microbarb to engage.
Most hooks are not fully buried when we get a run, fish are still able to shake the the hook free. Often we tighten up and the hook pulls all the way in. Sometimes we tighten up and we "drop" a fish, but it was never properly hooked. Then we can get odd bits of mouth damage.
Sometimes we get a hook come back that has the point turned over or bent out, but it was never sunk in properly.
The table of test results are from Luke Moffat''s website.
On the end section for the tic hooks shows how much weight is needed to get the nano barb to engage, and then how much force is needed for the microbarb to engage.
Most hooks are not fully buried when we get a run, fish are still able to shake the the hook free. Often we tighten up and the hook pulls all the way in. Sometimes we tighten up and we "drop" a fish, but it was never properly hooked. Then we can get odd bits of mouth damage.
Sometimes we get a hook come back that has the point turned over or bent out, but it was never sunk in properly.
In reply to Post #11
Why not just use a finer gauge hook - they will always go in easier ?
Why not just use a finer gauge hook - they will always go in easier ?
In reply to Post #12
That's true, but then there is a big compromise in strength.
The nano barb is on a much thinner section of the hook so it penetrates easier, and once it has a grip then the extra pulling force helps drive in the wider part of the point.
That's true, but then there is a big compromise in strength.
The nano barb is on a much thinner section of the hook so it penetrates easier, and once it has a grip then the extra pulling force helps drive in the wider part of the point.
Reading this thread a hook pattern from the past came to mind - Drennan "Starpoints" , I wish they still made them 
They had a very small micro barb and also a splayed out section below it just like a tip of a spear, it was very rare you lost or missed a take.
They had a very small micro barb and also a splayed out section below it just like a tip of a spear, it was very rare you lost or missed a take.
In reply to Post #14
They were good hooks. Great point and overall shape.
They were good hooks. Great point and overall shape.