Please help me

[Will1029]

OK gentlemen I need to be schooled on blanks. I use a local rod builder here in Wi. He used to only build on st croix blanks. All the builds I have had him do for me have been on scv blanks. Because of whatever happened in the industry with st croix and rod geeks he no longer really wants to use those blanks. He is now building on mhx blanks. Can someone please help me give me suggestions on a rod blank. I'm looking for a heavy jig rod. 7ft to 7ft 3. I need it to be on par with the scv blanks. I definitely want light as possible and sensitive. So should it be k2, eternity, nfc, point blank. Please give me all suggestions. And could someone also tell me if the mhx elite x compare to any of the ones I have listed. Thank you guys.

[willwork4fish]

What's heavy? 3/8 to 1 1/4 I'd say go with a Hydra FL4...I use that for most of my pitching, the FL5 is 1/2 to 3 oz...I punch with that. Both can be cut to 7' but I'd personally leave them at 7'6"...7'3" is no problem. An FL4 can easily be built under 4oz. IMO too many people sleep on these blanks, they're fantastic. I'd personally rather use one of these than any of the ones you listed and also made in the USA.

That being said, why not just get an SCV from Rod Geeks? Unless he's got some personal issue with them it's gonna be the same blank.

[Will1029]

Willworkforfish,
Yes 3/8 to 1 1/4 would be perfect. I have mh scv mh that is rated 3/8 to 1. I was looking for the next power up from that. I looked into the blank you recommended and seen it was im. What I the difference in im and hm? Under 4 oz is impressive.

[Will1029]

Willworkforfish,
One more ? I want to be sure it is considered a good bottom contact rod sensitivity wise for dragging.

[TampaJim]

Hydra blanks are my recommendation.
I’ve built on just about everything out there.
Great company, great products.

[shfishinsticks]

That being said, why not just get an SCV from Rod Geeks? Unless he's got some personal issue with them it's gonna be the same blank.

Kinda what I was thinking. They're still made in Park Falls and the bonus is you can get them unpainted now. Their wholesale isn't as good as St. Croix was, but it's still hard to beat a SCV.

[Will1029]

I don't want to speak for the rod builder but I believe after buying and promoting the st croix blanks for many years them making this change left a bad taste in his mouth. Plus I think there was a major communication problem with getting the blanks towards the end. I also believe the new pricing makes them less competitive.

[willwork4fish]

IM is intermediate modulus and HM is high modulus. Modulus is pretty much how stiff a fiber is based on it's weight. Stiffer and lighter should translate to more sensitive all other things being equal. HM while stiffer is also thinner and may be prone to breakage, again all other things being equal. That's just kind of the definition. Don't get too hung up on that.

Stiffness and sensitivity are also products of how the blank is made and the materials used regardless of the modulus and regardless of any modulus "labels" the Hydras across the board are very sensitive, extremely durable and priced well for what you're getting...IMO at $106 retail they're a deal. I don't even get wholesale from them and I still prefer them.

Probably the best way for me to answer your question though is this...I've probably got 40 rods in my basement and probably 7 or 8 of those are jig/pitchin rods. I've got both IM and HM MB's and Flip Blanks from NFC, St. Croix SCIV's (don't think I currently have a SCV), Point Blank MH, a Phenix flip stick, and a couple of Rod Geeks B4's along with a couple of Hydra FL4's. When it comes down to it and I figure out what the fish are biting, if it's a jig or a plastic it's going to be tied on one of the FL4's.

I might use the 4 power NFC HM flip blank if I'm bombing football heads in deep open water but other than that I'll use the FL4.

[willwork4fish]

Willworkforfish,
One more ? I want to be sure it is considered a good bottom contact rod sensitivity wise for dragging.

I just saw you're from De Pere...are you mostly fishing Green Bay/Lake Michigan? If you are and are throwing jigs deeper for smallies then I'd go with the Hydra Ng MB5 instead of the FL4. The MB5 is more of a casting jig blank where the FL4 is more pitchin. MB5 has a little lighter tip but I'm pretty sure the same lure rating, if not it's at least good to an ounce.

Another thing I forgot to mention above is if you're a braid or braid with a leader guy better to stick with IM over HM anyway.

[Bassbme]

Just to throw my 2 cents in, and I am not putting down anyone's opinion here. Just sharing mine .....

I haven't touched let alone fished a rod that has been built on an St Croix SCV blank. From what I understand, they are in the class of the Eternity2, and NFC HM blanks. I also have never touched or fished a rod built on an Eternity2 or NFC HM blank, but I am in the process of building on 2 NFC X ray blanks. Unless the X ray blanks are leaps and bounds above the St Croix SCV, Eternity2, or NFC HM (and they may be better but I doubt better by leaps and bounds) a Hydra NG series blank is not in the same class sensitivity wise, as an NFC X ray.

I'm not saying the Hydra blanks aren't really nice blanks, because they are. I just wouldn't assign them the same lofty status as the other blanks you mentioned. I've only built on one Hydra NG series blank. I would compare it to an NFC IM series blank, sensitivity wise. I've built on a couple of rods on Rainshadow Immortal blanks, and I would say they are more sensitive than both a Hydra NG, and the NFC IM series of blanks. Again, not putting down the Hydra NG blank and certainly not putting down others opinions of them. I'm just sharing mine.

I know nothing of the FL blanks from Rod Geeks so I can't comment on them. If you are building a rod for pitching and flipping up close personal in heavy cover, meaning you need something that is durable but still very sensitive, IMO you should take a serious look at the Rainshadow Immortal IMMC72MH. Absolutely awesome blank, very sensitive, with gobs of power. If you're looking for a lighter blank, then I would take a serious look at the Eternity2 ETEC72MH.

Again, just sharing my opinion.

[willwork4fish]

Bassbme, if you're talking about me, I don't really take offense to much. We've all got our opinions on what we like to fish and it's all subjective. I don't think I said that the Hydra was the most sensitive blank you can get (though it is sensitive). When you're talking modulus and sensitivity, it's really a overall weight to stiffness ratio. If you've got the same "stiffness" or power and action from two different blanks then regardless of whether its IM or HM you're going to be really close in sensitivity all other factors being equal, length, built etc.

I've built quite a few SCV's and really all of the Croixs over the years. I've got a buddy who fished all factory LEs (this is way back going to the brown blanks). He was telling me that they were the best, blah blah. I told him that I'd build him a rod on a SCIII and that if he didn't honestly think that it fished better and felt more sensitive than his factory LEs he could have it for free. It was a 7'MHF with the guides spiraled. He fished it for a season and paid me, ended up being his go to Trig rod.

Anyway SCV's are on par in terms of sensitivity with NFC HM and I would consider the SCV a hi mod blank. I can't find the weight specs on the NFC website but if you compare a 7'3" Hydra MB5 with a SCV74HF (pretty much the same lure rating) the SCV is listed at 2.6oz and the MB5 is listed at 2.4...let's say you lop off an inch of the Croix to make them equal you've basically got two blanks that are the same weight, same power and same action. They're going to be really close in sensitivity. Some is the material in the case of the SCV but some is the mfg process in the case of the Hydra.

Hydra is $103 retail and the SCV is $220 retail. There's a huge law of diminishing returns when it comes to rod components. Build those two exactly the same and don't tell anyone which is which and IMO it's a toss up between which one someone will like better. Same goes with guides. Torzites are at least 4 if not 5 times the cost of Alconites. They're not even 1.5 times as good. I've actually done that comparison.

The OP will end up with a good rod with any of the blanks he listed, I just think he could be just as happy with the Hydra and have a heavier wallet.

[Will1029]

Bassbe me,
What nfc xray blank would would recommend building on if I want to be in that true 5 power range?

Willworkforfish ,
I actually called hydra today and spoke to a gentleman named Alex. This gentlemen was amazing to talk with and is looking into some different blanks after we spoke awhile about what I was trying to do.

[Will1029]

I really appreciate you guys taking the time to help me out. I really like working with my rod builder, however were we live he builds mostly walleye and musky rods. It is difficult to talk "bass" with a walleye guy. The technique specific rods I have had him build turned out great buy really tough to explain to get there. He gave me a lot of "you sure" looks.

[Will1029]

Bassbme,
What xray blank is the kistler z bone zb5h73 built on?

[Bassbme]

willwork4fish, I respect the heck out of you and your knowledge about rod building. You definitely have a lot more experience than I do when it comes to building. And way more experience with blanks from different manufacturers than I do .... so yeah I guess I was trying to make certain that you didn't think I was disrespecting your opinion. The Hydra NG blank I've built on is a fine blank, but Will (the thread originator) said he was looking for a blank on par with an SCV. I just don't see a Hydra NG in that class.

And I agree with what you said about weight of blank and being able to build a better rod on a lesser blank, than a factory rod on a for lack of a better word, "better" blank. I've had a couple of buddies try the rod I built on the Immortal 72MH blank I mentioned, and they said it felt as good as their GLXs. They just said it was heavier. Of course that is because I added weight inside the butt so the rod and reel balanced tip light. Flipping and pitching rod n all. Anyhow, we are in agreement. It's not always about the blank the rod is built on. But it sure helps :o)

Will1029, I very little experience with NFC blanks. The X ray blanks I am building on currently are both the same MB736 blank. Other than that. I've only built on 2 other NFC blanks, both from the IM series. A DS6107, and an MB709. I do have a pre Shimano G Loomis GL2 that is a 4 power, but that's it. Sorry I can't help you further with that.

[Bassbme]

Will1029, not sure. I know the Z Bone uses the X ray blanks, and I read a Tackle Tour review on the Z Bone ZB3LMH73. If I were to guess which X ray blank it is built on, I would guess it's built on the MB736. Although, it may be an X ray blank that is built to Kistler's specs. The ZB3LMH73 has a weight range of 1/8 - 3/4 oz. The MB736 is 1/4 - 3/4. I did some CCS testing on one of my MB736's, and it has an IP of 658 grams. Using the CCS formula for lure weight range it was 5/16 to almost 7/8 oz. I checked the IP for a couple of the factory medium heavy power rods I still have, and their IPs were real close to what the 736's was.

The Immortal IMMC72MH is named medium heavy power, but its lure weight range is 3/8 - 1 oz. And although I have yet to check its IP number, it has a LOT more power than any of the medium heavy power rods I checked. It just goes to show you that named powers don't really mean a lot. I go more by blank specs than what a manufacturer chooses to name it.

Oh, and Alex at Hydra is an awesome guy. He really took care of my on the Hydra blank I got from them. Great guy, and another reason I don't want to talk down on Hydra blanks. They really are great blanks.

[Will1029]

Can anyone tell me what blank the kistler z bone zb5h73?

[willwork4fish]

I didn't know the Zbone went to the Xray blank, just read the TackleTour piece. I'm not sure which one they use though for the zb5h73. I can't find a blank that matches those specs (7'3", 3/8-1 1/2oz, Moderate). It's likely that it's a blank just rolled for Kistler.

The two Xrays that I've built that'd probably come closest is the MB7109 (7'10", 1/2-2oz, Fast) or the MB736 (7'3", 1/4-3/4oz, Fast). The SJ736 (7'3", 1/4-1oz, Fast) might also be an option but I haven't built it. Kistlers rating of 5 power isn't going to match with NFC's 5 power in most cases. From NFC you'll likely be looking at 6 power and above.

Alex is a great guy to talk with and is extremely knowledgeable not just with his blanks but also others.

[Will1029]

Thanks for all the help guys. Maybe I need to find a board sponsor who builds rods. My guy is great, just not a bass guy. Two more questions. One, what is the difference between sj and mb? Two, how much could I cut off a 7ft 10 inch blank without drastically changing it.

[Bassbme]

MB is a mag bass blank, SJ is a spin jig blank. Both labels refer to the taper of the blank. Usually (but not always) larger diameter butts for both, over what would be be called a casting blank, or a spinning blank. I've found that spin jig blanks are usually a little bit faster action than a mag bass blank of the same power, But once again, not always. Actions/ tapers are pretty much like named power ratings. One manufacturers fast, may be faster than another manufacturers fast.

The CCS (Common Cents System) is a way of measuring the characteristics of a blank. IP = intrinsic power, which is how powerful the blank is. In the CCS, action is a measurement of the angle (0 - 90 degrees) of the tip of the rod, when the rod is fully loaded. In the CCS, a rod or blank is fully loaded when the blank deflects a distance equal to 1/3 of the blank's or rod's, total length. It's a nice way of comparing blanks, but it can't measure the blank's sensitivity. There are other parameters that can be measured using the CCS as well. Lure weight range can be determined as well as a blanks harmonics.

I've never delved far enough into the CCS to check a blank's harmonics. It just isn't something I'd even care to try and understand.