Abrasive resistance mono vs flouro

[fisherman-andy]

Is flouro really more abrasive then mono? Or is it just a marketing misconception? I tend to see this in lighter line setups that flouro appears stronger; but in big game lines 20lb or heavier does mono at a point become more resistant then same line weight flourocarbon when fish under heavy cover and rocks. Is it because of the diameter size? Material formulation and manufacturing? And if so why?

[mainbutter]

My anecdotal experience: from 4lbs up through 100lbs, fluoro outperforms mono as a short bite leader, above that I find that the stretch, more flexible, and softer nature that mono has is actually a good thing (along with price!). If you're talking abrasion from sand and other environmental issues, the difference is so minimal I couldn't pick a winner.

[20lbSloughShark]

From as well as I can tell, it is marketing hype. I find no difference between the two. If you were using it as a leader, the only real difference is mono floats, and fluoro sinks. I also don't get the whole fluoro is invisible compared to mono. I look at them side by side, and they both look the same, both above and below the water. The real differences I see are that fluoro is a little thinner than mono, and stretches a lot less.

-Tom

[Luke_M]

If you put the same size nick in a piece of flouro and mono you would probably have the same loss of strength. The difference with flouro is a nick in the line doesnt propagate into a larger cut in the line.

[401TE]

My experience is flouro is much more resistant to nicking/abrasion than mono. I switched over a few rods one winter because I didn't want to spend the money on flouro. Ended up costing me money as I lost a lot of lures due to line breakage from getting nicked on the ice.

Now I use braid to a flouro leader on jigging rods and mono on my bobber rods.