• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Let's discuss mainline...

I've changed from 12lb Berkley Big Game recently to 15lb Big Game purely because of the number of snags in the river I fish regularly. Its just a little bit thicker than the 12 but I'm far more confident now!
 
I have been using Berkley Big Game 12lb for years without any problems.

I bought a new bulk spool from the same supplier and spooled up one of my centrepins - the line seemed thinner but I thought maybe I was imagining it.

In my next session I hooked 5 big fish including a 13lb 10oz fish but lost 3 of them when the mainline snapped at the knot. I then stopped using that line

I borrowed a set of micrometers and found that the new Big Game 12lb line was 0.25mm whereas the old 12lb Big Game was 0.33mm - a big didfference.

I contacted the tackle dealer to express my disatisfaction and this is what he said:

Berkley have 2 labelling ratings.
One for Europe and one for the US.
The spool you had previously was probably labelled for the US where Berkley and others routinely under state the breaking strain so it should break at whats on the label with the worst possible knot. We sell that on listing number 170774747235.
This way of labelling is not allowed in Europe although buying line that breaks well over the stated strain has allways been popular.
The line you bought come from the range labeled for Europe where you would get 12lb minus the knot.
As you are unhappy with what you have bought please return it for a refund or I can replace it with a spool of the the US labelled 12lb.

Anyone heard that before? I haven't.

I have bought some 12lb Gardner GT 80+ which seems fine and it measures 0.33mm - I haven't used it yet but will fish with it on one reel and will use a reel with the older Big Game also 0.33 and see how it goes. The Gardner GT80+ costs twice as much as the Berkley Big Game

Just to throw something else into the pot - I have read claims in the past , allegedly from people with inside info, that a lot of line on sale is the same line just packaged differently and that there are not many fishing line manufacturers- so are our allegiances to particular lines actually justified or misplaced.

I certainly haven't used enough lines to make an informed decision - I was happy with Big Game and only considered changing because of the unexpected breakages.
 
best I have used and tried most is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ESP Synchro XT <<<<<<<<( not the loaded version though)
Superb line
 
Neil Kirk said:
I have been using Berkley Big Game 12lb for years without any problems.

I bought a new bulk spool from the same supplier and spooled up one of my centrepins - the line seemed thinner but I thought maybe I was imagining it.

In my next session I hooked 5 big fish including a 13lb 10oz fish but lost 3 of them when the mainline snapped at the knot. I then stopped using that line

I borrowed a set of micrometers and found that the new Big Game 12lb line was 0.25mm whereas the old 12lb Big Game was 0.33mm - a big didfference.

I contacted the tackle dealer to express my disatisfaction and this is what he said:

Berkley have 2 labelling ratings.
One for Europe and one for the US.
The spool you had previously was probably labelled for the US where Berkley and others routinely under state the breaking strain so it should break at whats on the label with the worst possible knot. We sell that on listing number 170774747235.
This way of labelling is not allowed in Europe although buying line that breaks well over the stated strain has allways been popular.
The line you bought come from the range labeled for Europe where you would get 12lb minus the knot.
As you are unhappy with what you have bought please return it for a refund or I can replace it with a spool of the the US labelled 12lb.

Anyone heard that before? I haven't.

I have bought some 12lb Gardner GT 80+ which seems fine and it measures 0.33mm - I haven't used it yet but will fish with it on one reel and will use a reel with the older Big Game also 0.33 and see how it goes. The Gardner GT80+ costs twice as much as the Berkley Big Game

Just to throw something else into the pot - I have read claims in the past , allegedly from people with inside info, that a lot of line on sale is the same line just packaged differently and that there are not many fishing line manufacturers- so are our allegiances to particular lines actually justified or misplaced.

I certainly haven't used enough lines to make an informed decision - I was happy with Big Game and only considered changing because of the unexpected breakages.
Click to expand...
GT80. In 12lb.
ITS what I use on Trent, Severn and Wye.

Very similar to GR60 IMO.

Only negative A bit springy, but can live with that for the total confidence it gives me.
 
3 off the top of my head which I’ve used extensively in the past and trust completely

GR60
Berkley big game
And the line I absolutely love and stuck with over the last 2 years which is the Fox Exocet

0.3-0.35 diameter is where you want to be with a good mono (12-16lb brand dependent)
 
Neil Kirk said:
I have been using Berkley Big Game 12lb for years without any problems.

I bought a new bulk spool from the same supplier and spooled up one of my centrepins - the line seemed thinner but I thought maybe I was imagining it.

In my next session I hooked 5 big fish including a 13lb 10oz fish but lost 3 of them when the mainline snapped at the knot. I then stopped using that line

I borrowed a set of micrometers and found that the new Big Game 12lb line was 0.25mm whereas the old 12lb Big Game was 0.33mm - a big didfference.

I contacted the tackle dealer to express my disatisfaction and this is what he said:

Berkley have 2 labelling ratings.
One for Europe and one for the US.
The spool you had previously was probably labelled for the US where Berkley and others routinely under state the breaking strain so it should break at whats on the label with the worst possible knot. We sell that on listing number 170774747235.
This way of labelling is not allowed in Europe although buying line that breaks well over the stated strain has allways been popular.
The line you bought come from the range labeled for Europe where you would get 12lb minus the knot.
As you are unhappy with what you have bought please return it for a refund or I can replace it with a spool of the the US labelled 12lb.

Anyone heard that before? I haven't.

I have bought some 12lb Gardner GT 80+ which seems fine and it measures 0.33mm - I haven't used it yet but will fish with it on one reel and will use a reel with the older Big Game also 0.33 and see how it goes. The Gardner GT80+ costs twice as much as the Berkley Big Game

Just to throw something else into the pot - I have read claims in the past , allegedly from people with inside info, that a lot of line on sale is the same line just packaged differently and that there are not many fishing line manufacturers- so are our allegiances to particular lines actually justified or misplaced.

I certainly haven't used enough lines to make an informed decision - I was happy with Big Game and only considered changing because of the unexpected breakages.
Click to expand...
Back in the 90’s me my fishing mates used to import bulk (2/3000m spools) of various Berkley lines from Bass Pro in the USA. We did it because Terry Eustace had started importing XT and XL and they were better than the lines available here at the time.

I used to fax over the orders and the stuff (20,000m at a time) would land on my doorstep in 5 days. The total cost was about 1/5 th of the U.K. price.

Big game was good stuff also; but at one stage it was re-rated as per your quote above.

we used to set great store in the line tests in the annual Tacklebox shop catalogue. I still do.

More recently I’ve used Gold Label (Eustace again) pro-gold. But that isn’t available now. Pro clear was a good casting line too.

My current line(s) are mostly Gardner and they are good. Seriously underrated if you tie decent knots. I’m using .35 up to .40, the latter breaks at well over 20lb.

currently I’m doing some Stillwater feeder fishing and am finding it hard to select a good 6 -8 lb line. Pro gold was my regular line for that job. Guru Pulse lasted about 3 trips ! Terrible stuff, Daiwa Sensor a little better but not much. I ve just bought some Drennan feeder line to try on recommendation from the local tackle shop. Time will tell.

One observation; when we started importing the US Berkeley lines we did some knot testing and changed all our knots to suit the new lines. So if/when you change your line I suggest that you test your usual knots— just in case……
 
Last edited:
Tim Marks said:
Back in the 90’s me my fishing mates used to import bulk (2/3000m spools) of various Berkley lines from Bass Pro in the USA. We did it because Terry Eustace had started importing XT and XL and they were better than the lines available here at the time.

I used to fax over the orders and the stuff (20,000m at a time) would land on my doorstep in 5 days. The total cost was about 1/5 th of the U.K. price.

Big game was good stuff also; but at one stage it was re-rated as per your quote above.

we used to set great store in the line tests in the annual Tacklebox shop catalogue. I still do.

More recently I’ve used Gold Label (Eustace again) pro-gold. But that isn’t available now. Pro clear was a good casting line too.

My current line(s) are mostly Gardner and they are good. Seriously underrated if you tie decent knots. I’m using .35 up to .40, the latter breaks at well over 20lb.

currently I’m doing some Stillwater feeder fishing and am finding it hard to select a good 6 -8 lb line. Pro gold was my regular line for that job. Guru Pulse lasted about 3 trips ! Terrible stuff, Daiwa Sensor a little better but not much. I ve just bought some Drennan feeder line to try on recommendation from the local tackle shop. Time will tell.

One observation; when we started importing the US Berkeley lines we did some knot testing and changed all our knots to suit the new lines. So if/when you change your line I suggest that you test your usual knots— just in case……
Click to expand...
Great post Tim, many thanks. One point, and that's re. the last point you make (knots). Now this may seem like an oversimplification but, if we're talking about monofilaments (e.g. of nylon, a co-polymer, fluro-coated nylon, fluoro) then a knot can 'fail' in one of only two ways (I think) : it can 'slip', or it can 'crimp'. Given that the knot in question is tied correctly in the first place, the two factors involved in crimping will be a/. the inherent characteristics of the knot itself and b/. the softness of the line (its 'squeeze-ability') .... or am I missing something?
So my question is, after finding that (say) Line A was best used with Knot X, then later find that Line B was best used with Knot Y, did you revisit Line A and see if that actually tied better with Knot Y ? Wasn't there a knot that crimped the line the least i.e. could each knot be assigned some kind of 'crimping index figure' 😂 , material science being just physics in practice? (but as I say, maybe I'm missing something?)
Or ... was 'knot failure' to do with slippage, which is a whole new ball game (well, except that the two are sometimes partly interrelated in that slight crimping of line can slow down slippage).
The point you make (which, IMO, is a very interesting one) opens a whole new 'can of worms'. So how did the knots fail, through 'crimpage' or slippage? And which knots were best?
N.b.. I know there is at least one other factor in this 'equation' and that is surface treatment. For example 'Match Team' is a fabulous line but can be a pig to tie as it's so 'slippy'. But that surface treatment should only effect the line's ability to slip, and it shouldn't have that much effect on crimpage, which (I'd have thought) is to do with the softness/hardness of the line's actual core.
BTW ... I failed my physics 'O' level, in fact they only allowed me to take 5 and I failed them all, except for getting a 'D' in geography 😂
 
Terry Simner said:
Great post Tim, many thanks. One point, and that's re. the last point you make (knots). Now this may seem like an oversimplification but, if we're talking about monofilaments (e.g. of nylon, a co-polymer, fluro-coated nylon, fluoro) then a knot can 'fail' in one of only two ways (I think) : it can 'slip', or it can 'crimp'. Given that the knot in question is tied correctly in the first place, the two factors involved in crimping will be a/. the inherent characteristics of the knot itself and b/. the softness of the line (its 'squeeze-ability') .... or am I missing something?
So my question is, after finding that (say) Line A was best used with Knot X, then later find that Line B was best used with Knot Y, did you revisit Line A and see if that actually tied better with Knot Y ? Wasn't there a knot that crimped the line the least i.e. could each knot be assigned some kind of 'crimping index figure' 😂 , material science being just physics in practice? (but as I say, maybe I'm missing something?)
Or ... was 'knot failure' to do with slippage, which is a whole new ball game (well, except that the two are sometimes partly interrelated in that slight crimping of line can slow down slippage).
The point you make (which, IMO, is a very interesting one) opens a whole new 'can of worms'. So how did the knots fail, through 'crimpage' or slippage? And which knots were best?
N.b.. I know there is at least one other factor in this 'equation' and that is surface treatment. For example 'Match Team' is a fabulous line but can be a pig to tie as it's so 'slippy'. But that surface treatment should only effect the line's ability to slip, and it shouldn't have that much effect on crimpage, which (I'd have thought) is to do with the softness/hardness of the line's actual core.
BTW ... I failed my physics 'O' level, in fact they only allowed me to take 5 and I failed them all, except for getting a 'D' in geography 😂
Click to expand...
Terry,

Im no physicist either.

My knot testing is pretty (make that very) basic - 2x 3oz leads with a piece of line tied between them and pull gradually till something breaks ! Repeat a few times. I simply test one knot against another and see which lasts longest. Rudimentary but helpful. I can’t be bothered to resort to ladders and buckets of sand etc etc. I’ve messed about with a fancy line testing machine once and learnt a lot about loop knots that day.

Back in the 90’s our knot of choice for fixed connections (a swivel for example) was a tucked blood. When we used that on the Berkeley lines it failed. A grinner (uni) did much better.

These days I’ve done a lot of saltwater fly fishing for big ugly fish that fight. So if you tie crap knots you don’t land them; its that simple.

I aspire to never lose a fish to a failed knot…….and a broken line isn’t on the agenda either (but is sometimes out of your control eg an unseen snag).
 
Thanks @Tim Marks , and having no wish to hijack the OP I'll provide my contribution ... I've got a box full of many and varied lines and have come across some really bad ones, but my go-to lines are pretty old school (no, no 'k' there:)). I still have great faith in Krystonite for general purpose ledgering with 12lb/0.31, and Pro Fish Ghost Line in 15lb/0.33 for snag/flood water fishing (unfortunately no long freely available). But I've not tried several lines that have been mentioned above, mainly due to not having a problem with those lines that I've used now for years (if it aint broke...) But if I was casting further than 35m I'd be looking at more modern (advanced?) lines. So I'd say it depends what you want from the line/what you're using it for.
BTW ...I think the main problem with the tucked blood knot is in 'twice through the eye' bit, which can lead to crimping at the eye when one turn of line lies across the other. Going through the eye more than once gives you a great 'capstan effect' and is to be recommended when using non-crimping lines (e.g. Uni knot with braid), but is a no-no for mono-type lines (IMO).
 
I use only two knots for all my fishing which is limited to fresh water. Mostly using the Palomar and sometimes grinner. I've not had a single palomar knot fail in all my fishing, on any line which ive tested.

Nb: of course for barbel I am using knotless on the hook with a hair, so my only knot is on the swivel or quick change above the hook link. Always my hook link is lower breaking strain so I guess not a great test for the knot itself.

Back to line, I am still using pallatrax gamma and I do like it. Based on the feedback my next purchase when I need to respool will be GR60.

But a really great thread and some really interesting science explored!
 
GR60 is one of just a few lines that is grossly understated with its breaking strain.
The most common size being bought which is usually 12lb at 0.35 but it’s actually more like 15lb
It’s bloody strong stuff and takes a beating like a champ. I swapped it to fox Exocet 16lb which is the same diameter and strength simply because I wanted something a little more supple without compromising on durability and the fox line achieves that. I was removing snags out of kings weir on Monday that we’re covered in rigs and leads with it. Snags that would of smashed inferior lines to bits as they had done many times over.
I straighten far more hooks than I do lose thrm, that line is so strong.
Costs a chunk more but I like it.
I too have never had a palamour fail
You’ll never have an issue with GR60 either.
 
I used to use Bass Pro but can't get it any more, trying Gardener HD at the moment, so far so good. I do prefer a clear line so not so keen on the Gardener dark green colour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top