I have a 7'3" medium-light extra-fast St. Croix Victory rod, which I love, it is (was) my favorite rod. But this is the second of these rods that I've broken the tip off of. Exact same spot. In this case, I got my line wrapped around the tip and I was applying just a little pressure with my thump as I was pulling the line out and it snapped.

This seems like a real weak point in these rods, and has me wondering if I should replace it under St. Croix's generous replacement policy. Would ponying-up for a slighter higher end St. Croix rod get me something stronger, or should I a similar configuration from another brand?

Anecdotally... I read your title and immediately thought the exact model you mentioned in your post. Been a lot of mentions around the internet (and a buddy who's broke) that the tips snap on those. It's weird because the shorter ML and M xf rods don't seem to have the issue. What do you use the rod for?

Tangentially the knot around the tip top in the photo, if it happened before the break will definitely cause a break.

9 minutes ago, webertime said:

What do you use the rod for?

I mean, the reason I like it is because I use it for a lot of things. It could possibly be my only rod for most of my smallmouth fishing, finesse jigs, ned rig, finesse swimbaits and drops shot. In a pinch you can use it for finesse crank baits and smaller jerk baits.

9 minutes ago, webertime said:

Tangentially the knot around the tip top in the photo, if it happened before the break will definitely cause a break.

Yeah, I caught a pretty nice ~18" smallmouth about 10 minutes before the break, so I know it wasn't damaged ahead of time, then I got this tangle, I can't remember how, but I think I was throwing swimbaits, so maybe a bad cast. Maybe I should have cut and retie, but I had a lot of line out, and the fishing was starting to pick-up and I didn't want to take the time, I thought I could get it out.

31 minutes ago, webertime said:

It's weird because the shorter ML and M xf rods don't seem to have the issue.

Longer rod equals a longer lever arm which results in more time for acceleration leading to faster speeds which is why longer rods cast further. That's also more force being applied to the rod bend, which on an XF is going to be isolated near the thinnest part of the blank. Looking up this rod, it's a 1/16-3/8 rated rod which is generally found on both L and ML rods with the difference often being the light rods bending too deep for an XF. With a line rating of 6-20 that suggests that low lure rating suggestion is just to protect that XF tip. My guess, without having the rod, is that it's probably a pretty powerful rod if not for that XF tip.

24 minutes ago, 07Rapala said:

Yeah, I caught a pretty nice ~18" smallmouth about 10 minutes before the break, so I know it wasn't damaged ahead of time,

Often times rod tip breakages are not the result of one event but rather cumulative damage over time that you probably don't even realize is occurring. I don't have this rod but rods typically don't throw that well at the top end of their rating. It's very possible that without intending to do so you are overloading that rod tip's abilities, even if you're staying under it's suggested rating. And, again, with it being an XF tip, if it is true to that designation that casting force is primarily targeting a rather delicate area of that rod.

With this being multiple rod breakages, I'd probably look into a different rod action for what you're doing.

I have a St. Croix SCV 76 MLXF the tip on that rod is a 3.5 tube, way on the thin side for US made rods, since I built it, I insured the line path was already straight before I got to that part of the rod, so it can't do that, 12-13 years and counting. From the look of it your guide train is to big for your applications, I run 4 mm running guides and tip top. Myself, Gary Loomis and others have been using them for 40+ years with no issues. If you do decide to get a new rod from St. Croix switch the tip top to one of the newer snag free designs, it might help. If your rod also has a 3.5 or 4 tube tip top, they can be a bit harder to find, but they are out there.

25 minutes ago, spoonplugger1 said:

I have a St. Croix SCV 76 MLXF the tip on that rod is a 3.5 tube

Thank you for that info. I tried to find out real quick but since St Croix stopped selling blanks a few years back I could only find a few other models in that series but not this specific one.

For anyone wondering what that size means, a 3.5 is often used on UL rods. In fact, some short UL rods commonly use a 4.0 tip.

Rod sounds like a blast to use, just not sure I'd trust myself to use it. 😅

St Croix blanks are sold as Rod Geeks blanks.

I'd go cheaper rather than more expensive. Won't be as sensitive but normally cheaper rods are made with a more forgiving blank material. Just my opinion. No facts to back it up. I think part of sensitivity comes from a stiffer blank. Again, just my uninstantiated opinion.

As webertime stated line wrapped around the tip like that is a disaster waiting to happen.

6 hours ago, webertime said:

St Croix blanks are sold as Rod Geeks blanks.

I know, but I couldn’t find this specific blank. I didn’t spend very long, though.

1 hour ago, new2BC4bass said:

I'd go cheaper rather than more expensive. Won't be as sensitive but normally cheaper rods are made with a more forgiving blank material.

Years ago this was more true, but not so much anymore. The thing you'll often see as the rod price increases is the rod blank thickness drops. This isn't a big issue in actual fishing circumstances but the thinner blanks are less tolerant of impact damage such as rolling in truck beds, being dropped on rocks, or the rod's eternal enemy, the car door. I certainly wouldn't look to spend more money in the search for more durability, but I wouldn't worry about decreased durability as I increased cost as long as I was taking care of the rod in transit and storage and those considerations.

On 6/8/2026 at 12:33 PM, webertime said:

It's weird because the shorter ML and M xf rods don't seem to have the issue.

My thought was I might consider the 6'10" ML/XF rod if breaking the tip on the 7'3" is a concern.

The two rods may have the same number of guides, which also could be aiding the shorter version, but I don’t know how many guides either rod has.

20 hours ago, brophog said:

"The thing you'll often see as the rod price increases is the rod blank thickness drops. This isn't a big issue in actual fishing circumstances but the thinner blanks are less tolerant of impact damage such as rolling in truck beds, being dropped on rocks, or the rod's eternal enemy, the car door. "

I'm curious from where does this type of claim come from?

***Warning. Long opinion post. Please avoid if too many words.

I have to disagree with this statement because price increases does not dictate rod wall thickness.

I have studied rod blank construction for decades and my research conclusions are the opposite.

Decades ago thin wall rods were popular because they are considered more sensitive due to less mass in the wall meaning the material is easier to vibrate with weaker signals.

The problem with thin wall rods is exactly as you said above- they are more prone to breakage and being crushed easily. And this caused rod companies to have to warranty replace a greater number of them.

It was Don Mook while working for Morgan McCain of All Star Rods who changed this. Don was then partners with Gary Loomis of LCI, inc. and at the time LCI was then making thin wall rods. But when Morgan called on his rod supplier to help him create his own Houston, Texas rod blank factory, it was Don Mook who went there to create and build it. And from that factory is where the very first "pencil" rods or thicker wall rods came from namely the incredible "Emerald Edition" rods that have a still unknown binder that just keeps getting harder as rod ages.

My Emerald Edition rods to this day have the highest resonant frequency of any of my rods. Just tape on them gently with a hard object and listen to the frequency of the sound a rod makes same as ringing a bell.

The higher the frequency, the harder the materials are. And the harder they are the easier it is for vibrations to travel through it. On the opposite end of the scale is a rubber band. Extremely soft and vibrations do NOT travel well through a rubber band, or whippy low frequency rods. The binders plays a huge role in a rods sensitivity. The fibers are there for load strength. It is the binder that brings it all together and makes the rods what they are.

But the point is, to lower a rod company's warranty claims, after Don Mook and Morgan McCain began producing some of the first true pencil rods, everyone else in the rod blank industry followed suit to this day.

Basically what they did was simply change one thing. They simply rolled the rods into a more dense smaller diameter rod blank about half the size of what LCI was then producing. This was a huge significant change in the industry back then. And for rod companies it meant far fewer warranty claims for broken rods because now there was a way to make a fishing rod you could step on and not break. Try that with thin wall rods.

My old made in USA Falcon rods are thin wall rods- completely different than what they make today outside of the country. The reason is simple- its their bottom line they are looking at and adjusting their products accordingly.

Today rod companies are seeking a balance between the two methods and we see rods now that are kind of half thin wall rods and half thick wall rods falling right in between the old LCI's and old Falcons and the newer pencil rods that Don Mook and Morgan McCain came up with. What they did was revolutionary at the time and these two men deserve credit for it.

My point to this comment is that as prices increase rod walls do not necessarily always get thinner. I don't know where this type of statement comes from.

Basically what Morgan and Don did was keep the same amount of materials used in rods but simply rolled it tighter and smaller diameter to thicken up the rod wall for increased durability.

The move I have seen happening today like with some newer St. Croix rods is to reduce the materials to make lighter rods while still claiming to have the same or better strength than rods with twice the materials weight.

And I think this might in part be behind your statement. Its not that they are trying to make thinner wall rods. Most rod companies want to avoid that because of how easily they can break or be damaged and crushed by simply stepping on one.

I think some rod companies are simply trying to increase their profit margin by cutting their materials costs in half while still trying to claim same as or better quality. At ICAST last year St. Croix put out their new rod line I don't recall the name of it, but it was in line with this materials reduction game plan while hyping it as same as or stronger which I was not buying into for $600 for half the rod as before.

But you can bet St. Croix was still trying to keep those blank walls thick enough to drive down those warranty claims.

Today when a rod blank company makes a mistake in this game plan it winds up online with customers complaining about their rods breaking repeatedly. Right now on this forum is a thread about St Croix having just such an issue.

I have discussed this very issue with several rod designers in Florida and elsewhere. And there is a process of manufacturing that could help to prevent this but it is way too costly for any manufacturer to do. Presently rods are made by simply rolling a prepeg "flag" around a steel mandrel to give a rod its shape and then baked basically. But, the problem with this is one of flag compression.

As rods are presently made they develop thin areas in the wall and thicker areas in the wall. And it is from the overlap of the rod flag taper where this is coming from.

What rod manufacturers could and should do if they can afford it is to not only have the blank shaped from the insides but also the outsides by way of compression of the flag once rolled around the mandrel to force compress the entire rod blank length into one uniform thickness of wall. It is NOT possible to do this today as rods are currently made.

The equipment and labor needed would send prices skyrocketing to beyond reasonable. So we are all stuck in a economic trap with rod making. I expect in coming years to see some changes but will it be cost effective.

So what rod companies are doing today is what Dick Kantner and others got into decades ago- the following is a small excerpt from the Dick Kantner interview:

---

https://www.sexyloops.com/articles/dickkantner.shtml

"AD: So you would use a formula to calculate the general attributes of a rod, but not necessarily the subtle details?

DK: We'd use the formula to tell us the wall thickness and the fiber orientation necessary to get a certain action. Then if somebody said, "That's great, but it's a little slow in the butt." You don't go back in and recalculate, you just extrapolate and add enough material to get the stiffness and action we needed.

AD: Did you work pretty close with Mr. Powell in developing the tapers for your fly rods?

DK: We worked very close together in developing the actions. Our tapers are all slower tapers. We wanted to maintain a small diameter, and we had a couple of practical rules of thumb. In keeping a small diameter you have to make slightly heavier walls to carry the same load, which also improves rod buckling properties and damage resistance. We never got into the "weight race" that a lot of fly rod companies did.

AD: Lighter and lighter and lighter....

DK: Yeah, lighter and lighter and more fragile. Our thought was fly rods don't break from fishing; they break from collateral damage, whether it's a big fly hitting it or something else like those electric tailgate windows! (Laughter)"

---

That interview was decades ago. Dick Kantner has been deceased for many years. And yet today in 2026 St. Croix is falling right in line with what he was talking about- the direction of rod blank construction in the future. We see it now unfolding.

What St. Croix is experimenting with as do all others now are the insertion of other fibers in addition to graphite in various places along the length of the blank. But, the key critical detail is in how those fibers are used. Their directional patterns within the rod blank walls.

For those who think and believe rods don't have a spine worthy of inclusion in rod building are really missing out on getting the most out of blank construction on the fishing side of things.

If tips are snapping off, then this is the source of it right here. And you may well find that the breaking point is directly along the prepeg flag's taper edge as it is rolled up where the thin area is located. And without external compression this leads to thin and thick spots all along the blanks. Without external compression this is just something we all have to deal with and live with it as is. "Spines" are engineered into blank construction as a default result that cannot be removed with standard methods of construction.

In my opinion, based on years of research as price increases, the rod blank manufacturer is trying to make a more durable rod which physics dictates increasing wall thickness, NOT making them thinner. Its really a balancing act now between several important key factors rod blank companies and their engineers are still trying to work on and improve. Sometimes they get it right. Sometimes they don't.

In the above video Gary Loomis is holding in his hands one of his blanks that falls right in between thin wall and thick wall rods. The rod in his hands is a compromise balancing act rod blank.

One final thought on this, Dick Kantner was asked at the end of the interview about the future of rod manufacturing and possibility of new fibers being used:

"AD: What do you foresee as the next generation of materials used in the fishing rod industry? How much further can Carbon filaments be pushed, and after that what is next?

DK: Well, the polyethylene filaments are being used in a lot of ballistic applications whether it is vests or sides of personnel carriers or that sort of thing. The problem with polyethylene is that it is so hard to get the fibers to stick together. Of course that is one of the advantages in a vest or something is that it will absorb a lot of energy as it breaks down and comes apart. Hhhmmm....other than that, I just don't know."

---

And there he nailed it. This is why boron was dropped. In order for a rod to have strength the epoxy binder must be able to adhere to the fibers. If the fibers reject the epoxy binder like water on oil, then the rod will fall apart and break easily. Binder must adhere to the fibers. And then fibers must be correctly angled- which sometimes different up and down the blank.

Dick Kantner mentioned possibly using PE fibers BEFORE anyone had tried them, but he was right that they could not be used for rods because of the constant bending rods see daily. Solid objects in military hardware could use them so long as the object was not stressed or bent in any way. Kevlar is used today.

Rod blank companies are going back to a mixture of fiberglass fibers and graphite to seek the optimum balance we fishermen want in our rods. Its all a delicate balancing act to achieve the best of all worlds.

Its kind of ironic today I would not pay $600 for a rod with half the materials. And the old All Star Emerald Edition rods- first true pencil rods of their kind are far more durable and were priced at only $20 each retail when new.

Revolutionary rods right here! And only $20 when new.

Some of my rods used to display this change in rod blank design and construction:

Top 3 rods shown below are low end Falcon rods made in USA at Oklahoma factory designed and built by Don Mook. These are true thin wall rods and basic entry level Falcon rods. Note they are thin wall on low end! Notice the thicker diameter of the blank.

Moving up the made in USA Falcon rod line to mid-line Low Rider rods and now you can begin to see the blank diameter getting smaller as rod blank wall thickens up moving towards higher end rods! Exactly the opposite of the statement I am writing this comment about.

The 6th rod down is a.....forgot how to use English Kantner double helix rod. It is very similar in size to the Falcon Low Riders above it.

The 7th and 8th rods down are both LCI rods. One is an LCI brand rod while the other is an LCI blank Gary Loomis and Don Mook sold to Morgan McCain of All Star rods prior to him making his own rods like the Emerald Edition first thick wall rods to hit the market.

The last 3 rods shown below, 2 are All Star Emerald Edition rods. The first true pencil rods ever made with thicker walls to avoid as many warranty claims as possible. We have businessman Morgan McCain to thank for this change, and Don Mook for doing it. Gary Loomis quickly followed suit as did everyone else in rod blank industry. All about the bottom line profits versus expenses.

Shown below at top 3 thin wall Bucoo low end rods. 4th rod down, the new thicker wall rod. The 5th and 6th rods down below were made at the same time as the Emerald Edition above them showing the LCI blank sold to All Star is a thinner wall rod, and the low rider below it shows the move towards thicker wall in more expensive rods.

Tossing in some more words on this subject.... above Dick Kantner mentions developing specific action in his rods while not getting the action he wanted in the butt end. He said you can't go back in and rearrange and re-engineer that. So what has happened since Dick Kantner died is that rod blank companies began taking a shortcut.

They develop the rod tapers and actions they wanted but if the butt section does not have the action they wanted they simply added a second prepeg flag over top of the rod blank in the butt section to stiffen it up some. This is why we see rods today built this way appearing to be two different rods. Its because of how the fibers are angled in the prepeg. How they cross each other and at what angles. Trying to get different angles and crossing overlays in one prepeg just does not work. So they resorted to using 2 different ones bound together one over top the other.

When I was working on my own spiral guide design, Don Morton contacted me about it. He was working on something at the time he called "tracking axis" of a rod blank. His work is still unpublished, but he sent me what he was working on at the time with engineering students at an Alabama university.

Don Morton passed away a few days ago, so now I can share his unfinished work publicly as only a mention showing what he was working on in another thread on this forum.

https://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/270308-don-morton-a-legend-in-tackle-industry-passes/#comment-3223598

Sorry for the long comment. Just wanted to share some of my years of studying this subject. My rod choices to this day are dictated by these changes in rod blank construction and origins.