I am looking to build a spinning finesse rod for myself. What power and action do you recommend? Also, any preferred blank manufacturer would you recommend? Thanks in advance.

I have built several finesse spinning rods looking for the most sensitive for river and stream fishing.  The Rainshadow Immortal series is what I settled on.  XF walleye blank, IMMWS68MXF-TC. I'm a light freak and use Mudhole SSR guides with a ceramic tip top.  I either use 12lb braid with a 6 or 8 lb fluorocarbon leader or straight 6 lb mono, a 1/16th oz bullet weight with a 1/0 or 2/0 worm hook.  

Depends on what your goals are.  If budget is an issue, Rainshadow REV, 7 foot, medium/fast is very good and not too expensive.  Next up would be the Immortal, length as you prefer, medium/fast or XF, as Alex recommends.  But if you want the best, and you might find one still around for a bargain price since a new line is coming soon, would be the Point Blank 701MLF.  Called a medium light, it has more power than the St Croix SCV70MF at CCS 19.9ERN/77AA.  77 Action angle is right up against what most XF actions are.  I have two of these, and they are great, light, sensitive, responsive, rods.  I  build with Fuji KLH 20H-10H-5.5M, then two KB4's and 4 KT4's. Better than any other premium rods I have, and I have many other premium rods. Check GetBitOutdoors, they had them for $100 in stock recently.

The reason above is why general descriptions are useless, the blanks above wouldn't be classified as finesse in my part of the woods, rods in 12 - 14 CC Data scale would be a finesse rod.

for finesse applications, I prefer a ml power and a fast action.  

 

I have some rainshadow revelation blanks and I prefer the ml for finesse over m as their m power is a little stiffer than other brands.

 

I also have some mhx blanks and those are pretty nice too for the money, although I do think the rainshadow revelation are a little better than the baseline mhx sj or mag taper blanks.  

 

Lurepartsonline is in springfield which isn't too far away from you.  They don't have a storefront as it is a warehouse, but I was able to go inside and look at stuff.  They have a rod building section that you may be able to handle blanks.  They carry a lot of blank brands that may help you out.

If finesse includes tubes, small swimbaits, Neds, wacky, etc, the blanks I described are absolutely suitable for  finesse.  Maybe the description of finesse needs to be visited. 

Here is this Michiganders take on it (who fishes smaller lakes than MickD fishes).  

 

2” and smaller  soft plastics on 1/16th or less jighead weight = ultra finesse or BFS.  Light power rods.  

 

2.5” tubes, 1/16th oz Ned’s, 2.8” swimbaits, smaller wacky rigs= finesse.  1/16-3/16th oz jighead weight.  Medium light power rods.  

 

3.5” tubes, 5” wacky, 3.3 and 3.8” swimbaits.  1/8-3/8 oz  jighead weights. Medium power rods like the St. Croix 70MF spinning rods.  I consider these “general purpose/regular size” lures.  A great all purpose rod, but not a finesse rod.

 

I was flexing my PB701LXF and PB701MLF blanks in the shop today and comparing it to my SCV70mlf blanks.  I would say the 701MLF is not a finesse rod.  The 701LXF does have a light enough tip to probably cast light baits well, but the transition to power is pretty abrupt and does not have the give that I like in a finesse rod after the initial tip flex.  But, I suspect it would cast my definition of finesse lures well, not sure I would love how it bends when fighting fish.  For the record, I do not love my SCV76mlxf either due to the abrupt transition to power after the initial tip flex.  I need to spend more time with it still, but when fighting smallies I noted that I would prefer to see a bit more give after the light tip flex.   I much prefer the bend profile of the SCV70mlf.  I need to build the Point Blank rods and fish them, but that is my reaction to comparing flex in the shop.  They seem like great blanks though.  

 

I freely admit my strong bias to the SC 70mlf rods.  I have caught more bass on those rods than probably all my other rods combined.  Dropshot and Ned rigs mainly.  The second rod I built was a SCIII 70mlf.  I still fish a factory SCV70mlf.  The NFC SJ703 does feel very similar.  I think the carbon air DS 710 X-ray C6O2 will also fall into this category.  

 

Note: yes, I have too many blanks I am waiting to build.  I need to retire and free up some time.  

 

 

The problem here is that the subjective descriptions are all over the map and don't accurately describe the power of the blanks.  The St Croix SCVMF70 has a power of 17 and is called a medium power.  The PB701MLF has a power of 19.9 and is called medium light.  A Rainshadow walleye spin blank I have has a power of about 13 and is called medium light.  The walleye blank was built into a BFS and does quite nicely there.  The other two both work fine for Neds, tubes, wacky, swimbaits up to 3.8 inches, and twitching 5 inch super flukes.  The SCV70MF is a great all around bass rod, as is the PB701MLF.  Both handle smallies up to 5 pounds very well, but the 13 power rod feels underpowered fighting good sized smallies.

 

Add in personal preferences and casting skill to the discussion, and quite frankly, one has to take the advice lightly.  To me, the issue comes down to using the rod with the most power (and correct action) that will cast the light end of the lure range one is planning to use.  And this will be determined best by experience and one's personal casting style and skill + his line choice.  

 

I also believe most of this marketed crap about technique specific rods is mostly just marketing.  Rods consist of length, weight, power, action, and recovery speed + ergonomics, and while there are some specific technique "preferences," most rods can fish a goodly number of techniques just fine if they have the right combination of characteristics to cast well.

 

But the bottom line on discussions around L, ML, M, MH, H, S, M, MF, F, and XF is that it is just noise in the system if one does not measure the objective power and action numbers of the rods/blanks.  To measure recovery speed one needs to measure the True Natural Frequency, which also can be done quite easily.

Even with in one company power ratings seem more confusing than they need to be.  Take the NFC SJ series blanks.

 

The new SJ 706 HM is a remastered  Loomis SJR842.  Rated for 6-12# line, 1/8-3/8 oz lures.  Called a medium.
 

The SJ704 IM is also called a remastered SJR842. Same ratings as above.  Called a MH.

Why is one listed as a 4 power and the other as a 6 power, and they are both SJ series rods?

Throw in the X-ray SJ736 with a 1/4-1 oz lure weight and a 10-17 line weight (and Delta and IM series SJ706 blanks) are called heavy power.

 

So what is the difference between a 4 power and 6 power SJ rod from one manufacturer?

Here is a proposal I made in another forum many years ago.  It never generated any interest from the manufacturers, but I thought it made a lot of sense.  One can argue for differences in the values, but if all used the same set of values, it would make these discussions a lot more valuable.

 

Objective CCS to subjective terms conversion proposal

Michael Danek:
Light: 201-300 grams  9.9 -12.6 ERN
Medium-Light: 301-425 grams 10 - 15.8
Medium: 426-625 grams 15.9 – 21.3
Medium Heavy: 626-925  21.4 – 28.2
Heavy: greater than 926 28.3 - ??

Slow action: less than 50 degrees
Moderate-slow 51-55 degrees
Moderate: 56-60
Moderate-fast: 61-67
Fast: 68-76
Extra fast above 77

 

Right, DV.  This is especially a problem with NFC since they have so many blanks, thousands of them.  And they rate them differently depending on the "intended technique."  A medium power drop shot blank will be much less powerful than a medium power spin jig rod. 

 

How does the MHX Elite series compare to the Point Blank 701mlf?

I built a spinning rod on a point blank 701lxf and the rod is a lot more like a medium power rod imo. I fished it against an nfc sj732 and it definitely has more power than the nfc blank. I'd assume the 701mlf is even heavier than that which probably isn't what you want for a finesse rod.

6 hours ago, NYBasser said:

I built a spinning rod on a point blank 701lxf and the rod is a lot more like a medium power rod imo. I fished it against an nfc sj732 and it definitely has more power than the nfc blank. I'd assume the 701mlf is even heavier than that which probably isn't what you want for a finesse rod.

What is your definition of finesse?. I use the 701mlf all the time for Neds, tubes, wacky, small swimbaits, does it all well.  Yes it's more powerful than a lot of other blanks called mlf, note my numbers in previous posts.  Set up to test CCS and the power/action mystery will be solved.  Add True Natural Frequency and you'll be able to OBJECTIVELY describe all the attributes of a blank or rod accurately.  NFC blank descriptions are notoriously all over the place.  

2 hours ago, MickD said:

What is your definition of finesse?. I use the 701mlf all the time for Neds, tubes, wacky, small swimbaits, does it all well.  Yes it's more powerful than a lot of other blanks called mlf, note my numbers in previous posts.  Set up to test CCS and the power/action mystery will be solved.  Add True Natural Frequency and you'll be able to OBJECTIVELY describe all the attributes of a blank or rod accurately.  NFC blank descriptions are notoriously all over the place.  

Anything roughly around 1/4 oz, I personally prefer rods with a softer tip for finesse baits and I felt that from fishing the 701lxf it has a stiffer tip than what I would like. It would make a great wacky senko or strolling rod but I prefer the sj732 for lighter dropshots and ned rig fishing.

3 hours ago, NYBasser said:

stiffer tip than what I would like

Sounds like the 701LXF would fit your preference quite well.  I like the MLF because of the way it handles smallies that often go 4-5+ pounds.  

On 6/5/2025 at 7:13 AM, MickD said:

Here is a proposal I made in another forum many years ago.  It never generated any interest from the manufacturers, but I thought it made a lot of sense.  One can argue for differences in the values, but if all used the same set of values, it would make these discussions a lot more valuable.

 

Objective CCS to subjective terms conversion proposal

Michael Danek:
Light: 201-300 grams  9.9 -12.6 ERN
Medium-Light: 301-425 grams 10 - 15.8
Medium: 426-625 grams 15.9 – 21.3
Medium Heavy: 626-925  21.4 – 28.2
Heavy: greater than 926 28.3 - ??

Slow action: less than 50 degrees
Moderate-slow 51-55 degrees
Moderate: 56-60
Moderate-fast: 61-67
Fast: 68-76
Extra fast above 77

 

Right, DV.  This is especially a problem with NFC since they have so many blanks, thousands of them.  And they rate them differently depending on the "intended technique."  A medium power drop shot blank will be much less powerful than a medium power spin jig rod. 

 

Mick,

 

I don’t disagreed with your opinion of what ccs numbers correlate to the subjective power labels. Most people correlate lure weight range with those same labels and as you know rods with the same ccs power can have lure ranges that vary greatly based on action. This appears to be where a lot of confusion comes from. Ccs has no reliable measurement of lure weight range which limits its usefulness to a degree concerning casting and spinning blanks. It’s still much better than nothing. What do you think of everyone who measures rods and blanks recording power, action angle and claimed lure range to see if we can find a reliable and repeatable correlation between ERN, action angle and resulting lure range. 

We have been using a quesstimation, for about 15 years now, maybe a bit longer, take your ERN number and put a line under it and a 16, the fraction your see seems to get us pretty close to your max lure rating no matter what the company says. 

I haven't tried Spoonpluggers's equation, but I think it has been around as long as CCS.  I think Dr. William Hanneman, the inventor of CCS,  may have suggested it.  But I do believe there is more to it than that.  I believe that length, casting skill or technique,  and action get into it in addition to power.  I think that Xf is more tolerant of a larger range of lure weights than a slow action, especially if the XF is longer.  When you think about it, a 7 1/2 foot XF rod is basically a 6 1/2 foot Fast or Mod-fast on a 1 foot "broomstick."    I think that a 6 foot XF will not have the same range of well-casting lure weights that a 7 foot XF of the same power.  XF has a wider range because, IMO, the less powerful tip casts the light lures well and the stiff butt and mid sections keep it from overloading with heavier lures.  But it will require a little more skill to take advantage of it.

 

One should keep in mind that casting technique gets very much into it.  Some expert casters by changing their technique surely can cast a wider range of lure weights easily than less expert casters.  

 

Maybe with all the variables, especially casting technique, action and power getting into it we are asking too much of even our objective measurements.  

 

Even trying to get published data bases on the original CCS has been a challenge as people start them, and sooner or later they fall into neglect.  There is one that is pretty good, has lasted a while, and seems to be at least holding its own, and that is the one Kevin Fiant has authored.  Many thanks to Kevin-I've used (and contributed to) his data for a few years now.  I believe it only includes blanks.  It's available at 

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1r3zv1ygtuUjPBa-c5LT9RTYeDR_pnCDIkVIdDv0YoeQ/edit?pli=1&gid=1592691333#gid=1592691333

 

It would be nice to expand it to include factory built rods, and I'm not sure Kevin would agree to that.  He is the sole power behind this data base.  The achilles heel with these projects is not only the devotion of the author but also the cooperation of builders/anglers to provide data.

 

Here is where I pitch True Natural Frequency, or TNF, which is an accurate objective measure of guess what: the True Natural Frequency in bending of a blank or rod.  It is the only dynamic objective measure that we have to go along with the static length, weight, power, and action attributes, and if one knows all five of  these attributes he pretty well knows how the rod will perform.  The higher the TNF the higher the recovery speed from deflection and the crisper, cleaner, the rod will feel.  Some argue, me included, that it is a good indicator of sensitivity.  It technically logical that of two rods/blanks of the same length, power and action , the one with the higher TNF will be more sensitive.   One can see how the TNF changes with the different weights of the guides being used.   It is easy to measure and only requires a way to hold the butt of the rod, an Android device, and a free app.  Takes less than 5 minutes.

 

Good discussion!  Thanks for the suggestion DVT.  But I think my bottom line opinion is:  Maybe with all the variables, especially casting technique, action and power getting into it we are asking too much of even our objective measurements.  

8 hours ago, Delaware Valley Tackle said:

What do you think of everyone who measures rods and blanks recording power, action angle and claimed lure range to see if we can find a reliable and repeatable correlation between ERN, action angle and resulting lure range. 

I should elaborate.  One has to add length into the variables, IMO.  With all these variables it would take someone much more skilled in data analysis than I to figure out if this is feasible, if there is a correlation.  If one concluded  that yes, there is a correlation between the variables and the "claimed" lure casting weight range, it would still depend on one's casting skill to make it work for them.    All it would take, however, is one very skilled data analyst and a lot of time to see if a correlation exists.