Ssssoooo is @Catt a dumb Cajun? I was searching about Cajun red line and found this

 

https://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/search/?&q=cajun&page=1&search_and_or=and

 

I appreciate the laughs brother, seeing you say something like that so many times on multiple pages had me gassed haha.

 

But anybody have any feedback on that Cajun red line? Like Berkeley BG? Better? Worse? Something else?

18 minutes ago, Kites R4 Skyfishing said:

Ssssoooo is @Catt a dumb Cajun? I was searching about Cajun red line and found this

 

https://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/search/?&q=cajun&page=1&search_and_or=and

 

I appreciate the laughs brother, seeing you say something like that so many times on multiple pages had be gassed haha.

 

But anybody have any feedback on that Cajun red line? Like Berkeley BG? Better? Worse? Something else?

 

It's cheap line that uses the Cajun name to sell said cheap line to gullible people.  It's just zebco mono dyed red.

 

Cultural appropriation imo.

Just get you some Big Game. 

50 minutes ago, Kites R4 Skyfishing said:

But anybody have any feedback on that Cajun red line?

The 4# test is a cheap mono that I only use for backing on my spinning reels.

Used down here by saltwater anglers who don't know any better.

Crap line

but the package says its invisible ...

18 minutes ago, garroyo130 said:

but the package says its invisible ...

8 hours ago, garroyo130 said:

but the package says its invisible ...

Fluorocarbon line fooled everyone with the same claim.  

On 6/19/2023 at 6:45 AM, Tatulatard said:

Fluorocarbon line fooled everyone with the same claim.  

 

I believe the flouro hype based on trout fishing alone. Trout are sight feeders and fluoro definitely makes a difference there.

10 minutes ago, garroyo130 said:

 

I believe the flouro hype based on trout fishing alone. Trout are sight feeders and fluoro definitely makes a difference there.

Nope.  It's been disproven multiple times.

 

It's as "invisible" as clear mono.

Okay,  everyone go cut off an inch of fluorocarbon and an inch of nylon mono and drop each in a glass of water.   Please report back with your observations on the line visibility of each.

1 hour ago, Tennessee Boy said:

Okay,  everyone go cut off an inch of fluorocarbon and an inch of nylon mono and drop each in a glass of water.   Please report back with your observations on the line visibility of each.

They appear identical assuming equal diameters.  We don't know what "mono" is made from but assuming it's 100% nylon for the sake of argument then there is only a few percent percentage difference between flourocarbon and nylon on the refractive index.  It would be extremely hard to observe such a small percent different in something that is already poorly defined. How does one observe or quantify "4% more invisible".  

Catt is a smart Cajun.