Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
scaup

Leadcore question?

9 posts in this topic

I am going to give leadcore a try this summer. Kinda kicking and screaming but what the heck....... I have the basics figured out by reading other posts. I basically can't figure what test to use. I will be trolling no deeper than 30 ft. I see that leadcore comes in 12-27lb test. There must be something I am missing because I can't figure out why I would need 27lb line but is 12 to light? Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use #18, which is probably the most popular, but you can use #27 if you want. The sink rate for #27 will be a little different than the #18 (it will sink less because of the diameter), but with trial and error, you should be able to figure it out. I guess it comes down to a personal preference. I have never broken my #18 core yet, so I'm comfortable with that size and, after using it for so long, pretty much have all the sink rates, speeds, and depths figured out for it. I'm sure with #27, it wouldn't take long to figure out the differences. Good luck in whichever you choose. It is a very fun and challenging way to fish, and, once you have it down, is a very effective tool in your arsenal of tactics to go to when needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 is by far the most common for walleyes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 it is then. Thanks for the help.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

scaup, what type rod you going to use? I have a 7ft St.Criox med. with moderate action. that has worked good for me. I use all 100 yards, needs a good size reel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a couple 7ft med heavy with moderate action rods that I have been using the last couple of years for trolling with inline weights. They may be a little slow I am just going to see how it works. I think I will have to go up a size with the reels as well I curretnly use Daiwa Accudepth and Sealines but they are the 17's I would hope 27's would be big enough but if not I guess I need to know now rather than later. Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry gang I have been vacant for awhile, actually Ive been to lake Erie fishing my buns off, Well I fish the 15 or 18 it is more than enough, Ive never had afish break off of lead core line, it is actually stronger than you would imagine, also I use no knots, meaning this if you take a 4 ft piece of flourcarbon and tie a little knot on one end and force it in the end of the led core it will lock in the led core I think alot of guys use a small swivel to attach to the led core, I dont do that, once you get this down you will be impressed with the results you get from led core, have confidence in what your doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rod should work just fine. The reel size is the difference, I started using a accudepth 47 to hold 100 yds 27# leadcore, plus another 100 yds of 14# fireline backing.

I have also started use the snap-on weights also, I can use the same trolling rods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the Sealine 47's with 18 pound leadline. I also use a small barrel swivel with a 10 foot leader of 20 pound Powerpro. Seems to work just fine for the muddy water I fish.

mw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • Dave, if this many folks are not understanding the question, than maybe the question is unclear.  So rather then rant about it perhaps try rephrasing it.
    •     I believe you said it was "libertarian" drivel, actually, so you dismissed it out of hand...          
    •   You posted about neither.     But if you would read the article, my commentary and TJ's commentary you would know that's not really what the article is about.     You have to be kidding, right? Just about everyone who has an opinion on politics at all is this sort of person. Do you look at social media at all?
    •     Ok, now getting back to whether Trump will win the War on Drugs, do you think he will take any steps at all to decriminalize drugs, such as reclassifying marijuana, and recognizing state laws and programs designed to move towards the decriminalization of drugs?   Or do you think he will take steps to protect vested interests, such as prisons and the pharmaceutical. industry?   Just going off his rhetoric and his choice for a drug czar, I'm guessing he much prefers the latter, and will end up spending a bunch of taxpayer's money, and actually lose ground by continuing on with the brute force/criminalization approach.        
    • Because at the time, I don't have anything better to do.   I posted about the article, and you wanted to talk about the topic.  I posted about the topic and you want to discuss the article.    Which is it?     I support a particular candidate because their positions, taken as a whole, are preferable to me as compared to the other candidate(s).   In a few years I get to do it over.     I don't think there are really that many ardent "rah rah for my party" type folks out there, in spite of what we see on TV, or the occasional people we meet.     So the article is basically drivel, as I said before, based on a false premise.   
    • Borch I just signed up Ryan, Morgan, and me but I only see my name listed in the summary. Do my kids not show up because they don't have hso usernames?  Or did I not enter it right?     Please let me know how to fix it and I'll do so.  Thanks!
    •   Because I think self reflection is good for all of us from time to time.   If you don't wan't to discuss this article, why do you persist in posting here?           No one is disputing that at all. The premise of the author's article is in regards to the hypocrisy of then justifying everything your chosen candidate or party does blindly while vilifying the other candidates or party. It's the "all in" sports like mentality that is being discussed here.  
    • There is a really excellent book called "The Righteous Mind" that approaches this tribalist mindset from an evolutionary psychology standpoint. The author, Jonathan Haidt, does a remarkable job of unpacking why people persist in truly irrational defense of the indefensible - when it's their team doing the stupid stuff. I highly highly highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in lessening the hyperpartisan idiocy we have today.

      The trouble is that the closed-off mindset that lends itself to reflexive support for Obama/Hillary/Trump/whomever also tends to preclude any serious engagement in self-examination that the book is designed to provoke. Really good read, though.
    •   I get what your saying here but I think what Dave is talking about is the willingness of some to blindly follow, without question, their party or candidate. I saw this first hand during the primary with some of my own relatives, for example. I had a SIL who was a huge Bernie backer. The things she said about Hillary were worse than anything said here. As far as she was concerned, Hillary should be tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail. Then Bernie loses the nomination. She then became Hillary's biggest defender. Everything she said about her during the primary was instantly washed away. Even her own husband called her out. She wasn't simply voting for her because she found Trump worse. That's understandable. She defended or at least tried to deflect the issues with Hillary when just a few months prior, she said things that would make even Cooter or Bill say, "man you're harsh on her."   I don't think this is a new phenomenon. I also don't think it's widespread. Like everything else, access to more and diverse information just makes it possible to hear more about it than before. I think human nature causes people to internalize candidates and/.or elected officials. It's a "if you're critical of my candidate, you're critical of me," kind of thinking.   I don't fault anyone for voting for a candidate that one feels best represents their line of thinking. Or even defending their candidate from detractors. I don't think that is what Dave is talking about here. It's also the flipping of political opinions just because the candidate you voted for or support is supporting certain positions. For example, many conservatives opposed BHO's stimulus, including myself. It didn't work  as promised and we just added more on to the debt. So on the campaign trail, Trump also spoke of a stimulus plan that was even more expensive than BHO's and  those same people not only supported it but are justifying it. In summary, one can vote for a candidate without defending everything that person does        
  • Our Sponsors