Tungsten weights?

[MFD911]

Are they really worth the money?
Any better than lead?

[b23ball23]

I think it ll depends on where you will be using them. I am a huge fan of Tru Tungsten products, but I'm sure other tungsten is not too much different. I think that tungsten is a huge advantage if you are punching grass. The weight is smaller and will be able to penetrate the grass because Tungsten is much more dense than lead. The weights are also coated with a sealant that makes them resistant to chipping and also helps keep the weight lubricated so it will slide through cover even easier.

Probably the most important factor......is bite detection. Since it is a harder material, it seems to transmit all the bumps and nicks and fish strikes much better than traditional lead. This denseness also makes c-rigging much better since it is much easier to feel the bottom composition even when the weight is 30 feet down. Also, it gets the bottom quicker.

Although lead works fine for many applications, during tournaments I will always have Tungsten tied on when flipping, pitching, c-rigging, and worming.

Ben Dziwulski
God bless

[Luckyjohn]

B23ball23 is spot on Once you go tungsten you'll never look back.

[Luke]

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Luckyjohn &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">B23ball23 is spot on Once you go tungsten you'll never look back.</TD></TR></TABLE>

yep they are well worth their $$.......you will probably find as i did that when you start to use them you have 100x better feel on whats on the bottom and you also dont loose nowhere near as many as you do Lead weights....so they do last a long time.......im a Tru-Tungsten guy cause i dont care for the inserts in a lot of the ones out there today like Xcaliber, Lake Fork and so on

once you start using them you will wonder why you hadnt started using them sooner thats how i was

[misterpeabody5]

if you look at a periodic table, tungsten is NOT more dense than lead. Lead has the atomic number of 82 and tungsten has an atomic number of 74. The atomic number refers to the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the atom and therefore, the atom's density. I'm no pro, but in my opinion, this is a good example of marketing.

[teelman]

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by misterpeabody5 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">if you look at a periodic table, tungsten is NOT more dense than lead. Lead has the atomic number of 82 and tungsten has an atomic number of 74. The atomic number refers to the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in the atom and therefore, the atom's density. I'm no pro, but in my opinion, this is a good example of marketing. </TD></TR></TABLE>

If it's not denser, then how in the world can you get the SAME WEIGHT WITH LESS?!?!?!?

I'm not sure if what we use in the fishing world is 100% lead and 100% tungsten, but I can tell you FOR SURE, 1oz of lead is of a much larger size (about +40%) than 1oz of tungsten. Go look at the shelves in the store.

I'm not by any means arguing against the periodic table. I'm arguing that whatever we use in the fishing world, tungsten is more dense than lead.

[gatrboy52]

the positives outweigh the negatives.its smaller,harder,more sensitive than lead.no comparison.but, way more expensive.

[mikemac10]

has nothing to do with marketing at all, just look at a lead sinker and a tungsten sinker both the same weight, tungsten IS half the size of lead. If they could make lead sinkers smaller and keep the weight they would, fact is they cant, thats why there's tungsten.

[MikeM128]

Density has nothing to do with the atomic number of an element. It has to do with the internal bonding between the atoms. Density is how much of a substance is in a given volume. Water vapor is less dense than liquid water - but they both are made of the same compound - H20 and therefore have the same atomic number. Tungsten is definitely more dense than lead and it's not just a marketing scheme

[Phoenix Jim]

holy #@$% is there going to be a test?
All I know is like the comment above once you use tungsten you will not go back!

[misterpeabody5]

density has everything to with the atomic number, which is why hydrogen and helium are so light...water doesn't have an atomic number because it's a compound molecule, made of different elements bonded together. tungsten and lead have atomic numbers because they are (supposedly) pure. Tungsten can't be more dense than lead, unless something else is going on, like mixing or whatnot. Now, lead is probably worse on the environment if left in the water, than tungsten...but for now, I'll probably just stick to lead and save about 900%. just my opinion

[misterpeabody5]

Ok. I was wrong. Tungsten is in fact more dense than lead, even though not according to the periodic table. I don't understand exactly why, but anyway, I wanted to confess my ignorance. I was wrong. (but I'm still saving my money for now) Peabody

[20_lb_sack]

I don't know about atomic numbers but the listed weight of lead at 11340 Kg per cubic meter versus tungsten at 19250 Kg per cubic meter tells me on a volume basis tungsten is heavier.

[MFD911]

Thanks guys, I'll give Tungsten a try I think

[weighinalimit]

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 20_lb_sack &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I don't know about atomic numbers but the listed weight of lead at 11340 Kg per cubic meter versus tungsten at 19250 Kg per cubic meter tells me on a volume basis tungsten is heavier. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Ok, here's the explanation...1 lead atom outweighs 1 tungsten atom, however, 1 lead atom is approximately 46% larger in physical size than 1 tungsten atom. That's why a tungsten weight is more "dense" than a lead weight and is smaller in volumetric size than a comparable lead weight.
Most people get confused with the relative terms atomic # (mass or weight of a single atom), density (relative to the size of the atom and how tightly they bond), and the comparison of equivalent mass vs physical size in respect to volume required to achieve that given amount of mass.

[misterpeabody5]

Thanks for the clarification weighinalimit... I would have puzzled over that for a while. Thanks for clearing it up. So, tungsten does have some merit, perhaps even worth its weight...maybe i'll try some

[06Stratos201PXLDC]

Please don't try tungsten... i need every advantage i can get.....


Seriously though it is amazing the difference in the feel going from lead to tungsten.. major improvement..

[kstephens]

tungsten is 70% denser then lead (19.25 g/cm3 vs. 11.34 g/cm3), This is how much a cubic cm. of each weighs.

It is also much harder - I used to bite down on lead slip sinker to tighten them to the line - I doubt I would ever do that with tungsten. I guess this is why you feel more with tungsten.

Just give it a try - you get a much better feeling of the bottom, you will definitely tell a difference.

[Team Hobbie Hut]

Part of the reason Tungsten is smaller is because they put a TINY hole in the sinker for your line to go thru. I like to peg my sinker with a tooth pick and you can't do that with tungsten. Also.....have any of you guys had any problems with Tru-Tungsten and the other brands nicking and weakening your line? I have!!!!!

[Luke]

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Team Hobbie Hut &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Part of the reason Tungsten is smaller is because they put a TINY hole in the sinker for your line to go thru. I like to peg my sinker with a tooth pick and you can't do that with tungsten. Also.....have any of you guys had any problems with Tru-Tungsten and the other brands nicking and weakening your line? I have!!!!! </TD></TR></TABLE>

never had any problems with them and my line........if you like to peg get some of the Smart Pegas that Tru- Tungsten has they are the bomb