Hey guys so I am very interested in building on a Point Blank blank. First of all what kind of warrenty do they come with?

Second, would their 7'3 M XF make for a good Carolina Rig rod? I use 20lb braid and a 1/2oz weight. I want a rod with a good backbone, but a softer tip so it will load better and give me good casting distance.

Thanks!

I use a Heavy with a fast tip for Carolina rigs, since throwing that is more like a lob than a cast.

I found this by Googling Point Blank Rod Blanks...
E-mail me if you need more help finding the source.

SKU: PB701MF
Brand: Point Blank
Welcome to a list of features you won't find anywhere else. Dynamic Filament Bias, Zero Scrim Construction, Multi-Ton Progressive Modulus, Focused Pulse, Tape2, Cat's Tongue Finish: Inside the walls of a Point Blank are grid-like layers of incredibly strong carbon filament material that travel 360-degrees around the blank, adding tremendous hoop strength, increased flexibility, precise control, and the most SENSITIVE blanks ever offered. Equiradial Power Butt: Point Blanks are the only blanks offered that feature a butt section that is equal in diameter over a given distance resulting in easier component installation and removing the problem with mismatched tapers that can lose contact with the blank causing decreased sensitivity. Equal butt diameters force initial taper further out the blank allowing a degree of dead lift power that is unmatched. Together, the features of this new blank combine to form a single unit that offers the PERFECT balance between durability, weight, and sensitivity. *****IN STOCK NOW******

8-14# Mono, 10-15# Braid
7' Med Power, Fast Action
1.94oz blank weight
1/8oz to 1/2oz lure weight
65 degree action angle
460 power (grams to bend 30% of length)

*Applications: light Texas or Carolina rigged soft plastics, medium crankbaits to 6ft, saltwater grubs for speckled trout, topwater, spinnerbaits .

Wow that is the biggest mouthful of stuff i've read in a long time omg.

Cameron, slinging a Carolina rig is very similar to casting a popping cork in saltwater - something I do almost every weekend. BY FAR the best POINT Blank for that job is the PB761MF. The 7'6" length allows better control of the "hang-down" and the power curve of the PB761 is as good as I've ever seen for making this sort of cast. You'll also find it to have the flex you need to manipulate the lure in more ways than you thought possible.

It comes with a Lifetime Limited Warranty

Garry Thornton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I found this by Googling Point Blank Rod
> Blanks...
> E-mail me if you need more help finding the
> source.
>
> SKU: PB701MF
> Brand: Point Blank
> Welcome to a list of features you won't find
> anywhere else. Dynamic Filament Bias, Zero Scrim
> Construction, Multi-Ton Progressive Modulus,
> Focused Pulse, Tape2, Cat's Tongue Finish: Inside
> the walls of a Point Blank are grid-like layers of
> incredibly strong carbon filament material that
> travel 360-degrees around the blank, adding
> tremendous hoop strength, increased flexibility,
> precise control, and the most SENSITIVE blanks
> ever offered. Equiradial Power Butt: Point Blanks
> are the only blanks offered that feature a butt
> section that is equal in diameter over a given
> distance resulting in easier component
> installation and removing the problem with
> mismatched tapers that can lose contact with the
> blank causing decreased sensitivity. Equal butt
> diameters force initial taper further out the
> blank allowing a degree of dead lift power that is
> unmatched. Together, the features of this new
> blank combine to form a single unit that offers
> the PERFECT balance between durability, weight,
> and sensitivity. *****IN STOCK NOW******
>
> 8-14# Mono, 10-15# Braid
> 7' Med Power, Fast Action
> 1.94oz blank weight
> 1/8oz to 1/2oz lure weight
> 65 degree action angle
> 460 power (grams to bend 30% of length)
>
> *Applications: light Texas or Carolina rigged soft
> plastics, medium crankbaits to 6ft, saltwater
> grubs for speckled trout, topwater, spinnerbaits .


Be careful when trying to use these action and power measurements for comparing to other companies blanks. While these appear to be CCS figures they are not. As we saw in an earlier thread they are not taken from the same place as the CCS measurements and so they won't be comparable when using CCS figures from other companies blanks. Just a heads up to help prevent confusion.

James, you are correct in that the numbers are not "cents" in the traditional CSS measuring scheme. Instead, we are using Rod Deflection Analysis (RDA) that incorporates the same methods as CSS but works with the "working length" of the blank and the weight in grams to bend 1/3 of the length rather than the number of pennies. The action angle is measured under the same load. The method is outlined in our literature but it is good to point it out again for those who may not have noticed it. I believe the text above is an abbreviated version of our printed POINT Blank Catalog. Below are links to the complete catalog and selection. The web site should be up shortly.

[www.rodbuilding.org]
[www.rodbuilding.org]

Not talking about cents. That's just weight. If you don't measure from the same constants as specified by the CCS, then your results aren't actually CCS figures. If I take one of your blanks and support it as outlined in the CCS system the action angle and intrinsic power aren't going to be the same as what you list because you are measuring from a different point. My point is that it's okay if your company's "foot" is 11 inches but you shouldn't call it a "foot."

Put another way, if you use feet and inches to measure your blanks but only measure them from what you think the average handle length would be, to the tip of the blank, your blank length measurements are not going to be comparable to those from another company that measures teh whole blank. It would be confusing unless you call the measurements something other than inches and feet or at least tell the consumer that you are not measuring the total length of the blank.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2015 03:44PM by James Newsome.

The Point Blank action and power figures are not CCS measurements and shouldn't be regarded as such. They will not correspond to CCS figures listed by other manufacturers who are taking the measurements as specified by the CCS. Actual CCS Action Angle and Power numbers for the Point Blank series would be a bit higher than what the company lists.

However, whatever you want to call them, the numbers would be relative at least within the Point Blank series of rod blanks.

......................

Our hope was to provide information that would offer builders a good comparison of power and action within our product line. Since finished rods have handles, that bit of info seemed to provide a more practical and applicable insight into the finished rod. Our method is outlined in a number of places and our purpose was to offer something tangible that a builder could use when choosing a blank.

Jim,

And it does! Within your own product line at least. But I think the point was that because you use different measurement constants than what the CCS dictates, your numbers aren't actually CCS measurements and therefore not relative to actual CCS numbers provided by other manufacturers. It's a proprietary system from AR for Point Blank models, only.

The amount of the blank that needs to be measured under the CCS is correct by definition, just as the arbitrary length of an inch is correct by that system's definition. If you do not take the measurements per the CCS instructions, you do not have CCS measurements.

Not to belabor the point and on a slightly different note, but I wonder if your length and weight measurements are based on the entire blank, or only a portion of it? The handle portion plays into the total picture, you know,. The whole blank is used in terms of how a lever actually works. Something to think about if you want to go that route.

.....................

I recognize the importance of being consistent in how the measurements are taken. I think you and James made the point very well so I won't go into that portion of it. But I would add that the idea that the portion of the blank that is covered by the handle is not somehow relevant in terms of action and power is erroneous. I would bet that when Anglers Resource take the whatever measurements, they have a support at the very butt end of the blank, therefore it matters. It is part of the lever.

CCS never appears in our literature and has never been mentioned. James stated that they "appeared" to be CCS numbers and everyone sort of jumped on the band wagon. They are not, and are not presented as such.

I think he was referring to the fact that you use CCS specific terms such as "action angle" which would at least infer that these are CCS numbers. If you coined your own terms I suspect any and all confusion would disappear.

................

Jim Ising Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CCS never appears in our literature and has never
> been mentioned. James stated that they "appeared"
> to be CCS numbers and everyone sort of jumped on
> the band wagon. They are not, and are not
> presented as such.

I think the first person to use the term action angle was Dr Hanneman in his CCS system. The first time I heard of a measured deflection equal to one third a blanks total length was also in the CCS. Can't speak for anyone else but I would bet my bottom dollar that anyone familiar with the CCS would see the angers resource terms and deflection amount and assume them to be CCS. All was trying to do was point out that they are not CCS measurements to avoid confusion from those who woudl assume they were from the terms being used.

Why not just use the CCS and be done This way any builder can compare with some other rods You are just confusing builders And trying to reinvent the wheel

Bill - willierods.com

Point taken James, no problem.

I thought they were CCS numbers when I looked at them. It didn't say CCS but it didn't say RDA either.
Disclosure alert: I do work for a competing blank company. But, speaking as a rod builder and advocate of objective scientific measurement, I have to say that I believe the case(s) for RDA that I've read on this and other forums just don't hold water. They seem to reflect a continued misunderstanding of what the CCS is supposed to do, which is simply to compare certain attributes of one rod or blank to another by using a simple and objective set of rules to obtain the measurements. Adding the handle length variable into an otherwise pure system of measurement is not helpful to the rod builder trying to compare the raw product. RDA does not improve upon CCS, it adds more wiggle room for error and interpretation in measurement methods. Should suggested guide trains also be factored in to blank data? In theory, wouldn't double foot guides add greater stiffness than singles? Where do you stop?

-The Batson TEAM
BatsonEnterprises.com

I think Jim has clarified his position. He isn't using the CCS system although they are currently using some of the terms coined by the CCS system.

Beyond that for those companies that are using CCS, I think you use a system as it stands, and, since length and weight measurements given are for the entire blank, any system of measurement for other attributes should be as well. The idea that the portion of a rod blank behind the reel seat isn't being used or isn't a factor isn't accurate. It flies in the face of lever mechanics.

...............

I don't have a problem with what Fuji has done and it will be fine for comparing their blanks to one another, but I do wish they had just used the CCS full on so builders could compare their models to those from other companies using the CCS. Otherwise might as well have just stayed with the old "slow, medium, fast" and 1-2-3-4-5 power system that most still use but in different ways.