Use of Shooting Heads - Where?

[Deleted]

I am not yet a full convert to Shooting Heads for all my fishing.

Have used them at some times but still predominantly fish with a "proper" Spey Line.

One of the advantages of a Shooting Head that is put forward by its proponents is that it is really good in confined spaces as it allows a smaller D Loop to be formed when there are obstacles behind etc

I was reflecting over the rivers I have fish and am coming up with a real blank on such pools and rivers. This may well be down to my relative lack of experience on rivers north of the Tay. However I cannot think of anywhere on the Tweed or other rivers like the Tay where a Shooting Head is a positive advantage due to obstacles behind.

Could Forum Members perhaps details some rivers/pools where a Shooting Head is a positive advantage compared to a normal Spey Line, please

tweedbunnet

[kingfisher]

Its not just the lack of space to form your D loop TB, some even obtain greater casting distances with the correct SH set up, I know I do, so there is that to take into account on the larger rivers mainly.

However the SH is a distinct advantage on smaller rivers where the banking can be right up against you, and my obvious example is the Upper Nith in particular and below is a typical pool on most of the Upper reaches.

Shooting heads in this situation are a godsend!
Others may have different views to this?

kf

[scanny]

The space issue, it's somewhat of a misnomer on assumption that a head is a shorter setup than using a speyline.

Take a 15' Rod, 10/11 afs on with a tip and 5ft tipet. That comes in at 56ft, plus 2feet for overhang, so 58ft from tip to fly.

On that same rod, if space is an issue a Mach 55 with a 5th tippet, comes in at 55ft assuming it's cast 1st into the rear taper.

So, if space is tight, the Mach 55 will give a loop slightly smaller than that of a shooting head.

If we take the example, and now look at ease of casting in a tight space, with the Afs in particular, it will load and cast of the tip more effectively with a short stroke than a Mach 55. Line weight is important, but the distribution of the weight is key, so on an Afs with a triangle taper, it will load quicker as the mass is biased towards the rear.

Another benefit of a head set up in the example, is that the tip and tippet can be the anchor and the head still cast. Using the tip and part of the front taper on a Mach 55 to anchor with will cause far more drag. However, both can be short anchored without an issue.

On distance, some people find more distance with shooting heads, but casting a 75' or 85' head speyline give most anglers I know not only more distance, but presentation. Back to the good old Afs, as it's a triangle taper in a more concentrated form, it's unstable beyond a set distance, whereas a Lee Wulf being longer and having more mass is more stable.

I fish a few very tight spots, and use 11.5m cut heads on a 12'6 stinger, or a skagit. Waist deep, strong flow and with a tree behind you. They are helpful for this or sunk work, but for long line fishing or fun casting, a nice carron is my choice.

Now, wind...skagit or a proline for that.

[madkeen]

I agree with Scanny if space is tight get yourself an airflo skagit for around £20 , add a 10ft tip and your ready to tackle most tight spots.

[underghillie]

Shooting heads have the advantage over spey lines when one has the need to work the flee IE striping collie dogs and sunrays, or when fishing from a boat and working the flee right back to the boat, spey lines are almost useless in these situations as you have to make too many false casts to get enough weight of line out of the tip of the rod to perform the next cast and there for you're flee spends a lot less time fishing.

I agree totally with scanny, when casting purely for distance! the long spey heads give much better control of the line and much better presentation.

As for fish catching potential! give me shooting heads any day

Tony

[scanny]

Sunk line fishing is far easier with heads. Even in shallow river a PT Int/S1 will bite in and fish around slowly in quick water. If it's a torrent a s4/5 will do.

One particular advantage is fishing channels. There are a few deep channels on the Clyde, which you couldn't fish nearly as effectivly with a speyline as you can with a head. Cast square, let it sink without tension, then start it fishing as you come to the channel. With a full line it's mend after mend to slow it down and try get depth, but with a head it's simples.

[Deleted]

Scanny

I can understand the arguments put forward by you and underghillie re advantages of using a sinking shooting head in terms of fly movement etc.

There is one thing that I have not resolved in my mind as of yet. How much time does a Spey Line spend fishing compared to a Shooting head over an hour. For example, if you use a Sinking Spey line, you might make a cast every 30 (approx) seconds or so. How often is the interval between casts with a Sinking Shooting Head. Is it shorter or longer? I don't know as I have not measured it with a S/H but I do recall that I cast about every 30 seconds or so average with a Sinking Spey Line. I know becuse I tried to figure out how many casts I made in a day!! (Sad, I know)

tweedbunnet

[charlieH]

Nov 23, 2010 18:59:30 GMT @tweedbunnet said:

There is one thing that I have not resolved in my mind as of yet. How much time does a Spey Line spend fishing compared to a Shooting head over an hour. For example, if you use a Sinking Spey line, you might make a cast every 30 (approx) seconds or so. How often is the interval between casts with a Sinking Shooting Head. Is it shorter or longer?

I think this is an interesting point, and one that isn't often considered. Assuming you're not stripping a fly (which would not really be comparing apples with apples) it stands to reason that fishing with a shooting head will take longer to fish the same water, just because of having to strip the running line in between casts. But how much longer?

Simon Gawesworth wrote something interesting on another forum - see post 12 on www.salmonatlas.com/forums/spey-lines-talk/4118-what-style-spey-line-do-you-prefer.html.

To quote the relevant section:

"I fished between two groins that the ghillie had indicated, and, as I only really had one pool to fish, fished the same pool a second time down. I used the AFS the first run through and the PowerSpey on the second. It took me 1 hour less to fish the pool down with the PowerSpey as I didn't have to strip line in between each cast. Surely there is a good argument for the longer belly lines!".

To revert to the original question, I think that sometimes too much is made of the need for shooting heads in places with limited space. A competent fisher can alter his style of casting to suit the conditions, and it's often possible to manage with a longer head just by pushing your anchor a bit further out over the river. It does make for a slightly less efficient cast, but if you can't wade out to give yourself room it follows by definition that you have deep water close to your bank, and therefore you probably aren't having to cast to your maximum distance in order to cover fish.

[scanny]

That's an interesting quote from Mr Gawesworth.

Take a 15' 10/11 set up. Using an afs comes in at 57ft from fly to the running line loop, let's add 2 feet overhang and it's 59'.

If your using a 65' Spey line that's 75' by the time a fly and leader is on it. A 16ft difference to strip between the two, must be five pulls, at say 6 seconds. Over 100 casts that's an extra 10 minutes. So the big question, what time scale is 100 casts- half day, a day?

The effort factor, if it's intermediate fishing then I'm sure the greater effort in casting 65' speyline would be more detrimental time wise than the extra 6 seconds stripping per cast on a head.