Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
1-Alright, I have a couple 8's and a 9 wt. that I am very happy with. The next on the list is something in the 10-12 range. I'm confident my 9 can handle just about anything that my 425grn can get down to. However, I'm looking for something that will handle a 650grn or so. Is it silly to go one wt up to a 10 or should I just go for the 12 wt. I think I've narrowed 10wt. down to a Sage xi2 or xp. Any suggestions...Loomis CC ???

2-What the heck is the difference between a Cross Current and a Cross Current GLX other than the reel seat???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
322 Posts
A good fast 10 can be a really big step up from a 9, depending on what 9 you have. In your situation you may want a 12 if you think you are going to use it for fish 50lbs or over. If not and you just want a rod that can handle a little heavier lines and flies I would get the 10. I think you will get very little use out of a 12 unless you are going to be fishing for tarpon, tuna, sharks or other large gamefish. Pretty much all I do anymore is flyfish and I've got two 12's and I don't think I've used them more than 3-4 lbs. I caught a 59lb yellowfin on one of them and that was the last time I used it.

Of what you've listed I would get the xi2, it is an awesome rod, tremendous strength in the butt with a good fast tip. It will throw whatever you ask it to. The XP is a great rod too but does not have the strength in the butt and the stripping guides are a little small. That rod was not really designed for heavy salt like the Xi2 is. I've got both and use them differently.

On the Loomis crosscurrents the GLX is their faster top of the line blank. Quite a bit of difference and a much bigger price tag. They are ok but I like the Sage much better. The scott s3s is another great road, very similar to the Xi2. Cabelas just blew them out for 375.00 which was about 300.00 off. They are all gone though.

Good luck in your search. Go throw them but I really think you will like the Xi2 the best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,845 Posts
I agree with TW. I have a 10 wt Loomis CC GLX and a 10 wt Sage Xi2. Both are good rods, but I much prefer casting the Xi2. You could not go wrong with a 10 wt Xi2. I have a 12 wt but rarely use it. I bought it for SBFT but have not encountered any yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
The 10 wt Xi2 is a dream to cast and feels like an 8 wt in hand. I spent 2 weeks casting from shore with it from morning to sundown in Mexico and normally being a loomis nut , it really got me thinking....However, for the boat fishing I did, IMO, I thought the Loomis GLX in the 10 wt was superior as a fish fighting tool for bluewater species with its powerful butt section...can't go wrong with either...XI2 over the XP for sure in the Sage line for heavier duty saltwater.

mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
I would not recommend the XP. I bought a 10 wt XP years ago, and I still can't find a situation where that rod is useful. It is not good with heavy sinking lines, and it has NO backbone for larger fish. I usually only fish Sage rods, but I bought a 7 wt CC GLX this fall and love it! I just ordered the 10 wt CC GLX after hearing nothing but awesome reviews. Also, I have fished the 10 wt Xi2 several times, and it is a little slower than what I prefer (usually Sage TCR). Most people love it, but its not for me. I will let you know what I think about the 10 wt CC GLX in a couple of weeks.

Jonathan

P.S. The regular CC is much slower than the CC GLX.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
218 Posts
loomis warranty is conditional, meaning if you slam it in the card door technically that voids the warranty. Rod defects are covered same as sage. I usually opt for the expediter service which is a compromise of sorts. since I think most rods I have broken have not been inherent defects in the rod but my error, costs 75$ I think, and they send the rod right out no questions asked.

mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,845 Posts
I agree with Mark in using the Loomis Expediter program. I just broke Simon's 10 wt GLX in his rod holder and ordered one before we got home. The cost is $50 and the rod is sent out immediately. I think it is a very fair program for fly rods. It is a no questions ask warrranty option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Sorry, I missed your question about the warranty. Loomis' expiditer service charges $50 for regular mail and $65 for 2 day delivery. They send you a new rod, and you ship back the broken one in the tube they send you, no questions asked. You have 30 days to ship it back or they will charge you for the retail cost of the rod. Thats not too bad considering Sage charges $40 and takes alot longer. I agree with msaba that the expiditer service is safer than the normal warranty because most of the time a breakage is due to operater error and not a defect. I hope this helps your decision.

Jonathan
 

·
Tidal Fish Subscriber - I'm cool
Joined
·
245 Posts
Jonathan, Bill,

I'm interested in what you think of the glx in the 7-8wt range.

Hope this isn't considered a hijack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Hey Pete,
I bought the 7 wt CC GLX back in the fall. I love that thing! It casts both floating and sinking lines very well. It also has a ton of backbone for a 7 wt.

Jonathan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,845 Posts
I have the 8wt GLX CC but have not used it enough to really know how I like it. I rigged it up for blues in Raritan Bay last year with a floating shooting head. I caught a few blues on it and then the Cortland braided running line I used to make the head got torn up. It was old and I had put 50 pound Power Pro in the center of it to make it more friendly. When it came apart I stopped using the rod. It seems to me that it cast pretty well.

Maybe someone else can comment about the rod.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,196 Posts
Believe me I'm not trying to start an argument here, but am I reading the first post right? Your using a 425 on a 9wt. rod????? If that is the case. It won't make any difference what rod make you buy as long as its stiff. Over loading a rod by that much is going to kill any difference one brand is to another anyway. Juct get any rod stiff enought to cast that much weight. A 9wt. line is about 240 grains a 10 wt. is 280 grains. 425 is almost double the wt. the 9 is made to cast 650 is almost 2 1/2 times what a 10 wt. is made to cast. the difference between a 10 wt. loomas, sage, st. croix or even winston. wouldn't even matter when their that over loaded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Saltfly,
The grain specifications that you are talking about are typical of floating lines. These lines are rated by the weight of the first 30 feet. That is why it is hard to load a fast action rod properly until the entire head is outside of the rod tip. For example, the Rio Saltwater 9 wt is 260 grains at 30 feet; however, the entire 40 foot head weighs in at 330 grains. The reason that you can cast heavier sinking lines is that you do not hold as much line outside of the rod tip.
I agree that 425 grains is a lot for a 9 wt, but some rods throw heavy lines better than others.

Jonathan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,196 Posts
well frist off all fly lines fall under the AFTMA standards for the industry reguardless of them being a wf-f, wf-s, wf-f/s or dt-f or dt/s or l-f or s. Only the tweeny and like lines fall out side of that.Scond 425 grains is 425 grains reguardless of head leneght. A double tapered line has no head as compared to a weight forward line. Yet it still gives its weight in the first 30 ft. as you try to hold more line in the air the weight of line goes up for every ft of line you hold. Their for loading the rod more then it was design for. Rods built to the industry standard meet their weight class based on that rod loading with the give weight. Which in the AFTMA standard is 30ft. Rod maufactures out of self defence for people that over load their rods. Are building some rods that will load with 45 ft. of say a 9wt. line which makes that rod out side of the AFTMA standard. Thats why so many people that try to stick to a standard line size have problems finding rods today that cast a line size they like. tweeny started this hole thing with his lines. But he at least tried to stay inside the standards by keeping his heads under 30ft. other line companies did not. If a rod is deisgned to cast a 9wt. line but at 45 ft. then by AFTMA standard its not a 9wt. rod and nevere will be till the standard is changed by the industry. That rod for all intent and propuse is really a heaver line size rod. no if and or buts. Oh I missed you coment about rio being 260 at 30 ft. READ the AFTMA standards for a 9 WT> its 230 -250. Which is the tolerance range of that size line. Their by making that not a 9wt. by standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,196 Posts
OH and while I'm on my soap box. Just because rio calls that line a 9wt. doesn't make it so in the rest of the industry. If they want to change how the AFTMA sets their standards then let them try. More power to them. Thier all ready behind the 8 ball with other companies.

Every time I reread your post I see some other thing I disagree with. The rod action doesn't have a dam thing to do with the line size. I can have fast action rod in a 6wt. just as well as a 12 wt. Your confussing action with stiffness.

as for casting a heiver line on a rod. It can cast it simply because you chose to do it. It still doesn't mean it was intended to load with that much weight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Once again, I agree that no 9 wt should throw a 425 grain line. However if you are so convinced that AFTMA standards must be strictly followed, I would love to see you trying to throw a big bunker fly on a 9 wt with a 250 grain line. Anyone that throws sinking lines alot will tell you that a 300 or 350 grain would most likely be a better bet.
As you mentioned rod manufacturers are not following AFTMA standards very closely. After making that statement, how can you attack line companies such as rio for making their lines slightly heavier than your almighty AFTMA standards? If the rods aren't made to AFTMA standards, then it wouldn't make much sense for the lines to be made to AFTMA standards.
Also, C4D did not post here so that someone with nothing better to do would criticize him. He is looking for advice from people that fish these rods. If these rods don't meet the standards that you like, then don't buy them!

Jonathan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I really appreciate the helpful input. Like I said, I haven't fished with sinking lines much. A lot of questions have been answered on this post. The 425 is a little heavy for my Orvis Clearwater Classic 9wt, but she handles it well. I can get 60ft out easily enough. I planned on getting a xi2 10wt. and string it up with the 425, and then get a 350 for the 9wt., but the Clearwater handles it so well I was curious as to whether the 10wt. xi2 would be able to handle 600-650 or so. I may just go ahead and get the xi2 and give it a shot. If it doesn't work out, I'll just save the 600grn as an excuse to get a 12wt:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,845 Posts
There is casting and there is slinging the line. I fish a 10wt often in the winter and spring and have owned a bunch (few can try them all). The Sage Xi2 casts better than any ten I have ever cast. It will cast the entire line with a 400 to 450 grain sinking line and a fairly large Clouser. With a 600 to 650 grain line you may be slinging the line more than casting but it will carry it our there. I would not care to fish a line that heavy all day with that rod.

When I was thinking about buying a 10 wt Xi2, a buddy lent me his rod to try after a trip. I liked it and had one custom made but still had the factory rod at the house. It may be a mental delusion but I swear the custom cast nicer than the factory rod, but that is another topic.

Casting preferences vary greatly but I think you will love an Xi2. I have the rod in a nine and ten and am thinking about an 8 wt.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top