Tackletour tested tested the Edge rod built on the MBHM705 NFC blank back in 2014 if your interested.

Lynn: You are correct. The 9th entry in this thread specified Senko rubber worms used for jigging. Would recommendations for blanks apply to rubber worms in general, Senko rubber worms in particular, all jig-baits, or just jigged Senko rubber worms?

That's right, fishing weightless 5" senkos that for reference weigh 3/8oz for Bass around light cover

Phil, I and a lot of the anglers I know (all bass anglers) prefer extra fast action blanks for fishing Texas rigged soft plastics. I prefer the extra fast action for several reasons.

One, because I feel it gives me a better hook set because the power of the rod comes in faster. Two, because I feel it moves the fish better on the hook set. Again, because the power of the rod comes in faster. And three, because its lighter tip aids when using a pitching presentation.

Also, and this is purely conjecture on my part ..... but an extra fast action seems to be slightly more sensitive.

Ok senkos what kind of fishing conditions will you be using the senko? Are you casting or pitching?

David: That makes sense. Thanks for adding the "why" to the "what."

I must admit that when someone mentions weightless Senkos to me all that initially comes to mind is the wacky rig. I forget Texas rigging them with no weight has become so popular. When they are so rigged I think they could be fished on the same rod used for lighter T-rigs or jigs up to 3/8oz or so. Or enough rod to get the hook through the worm and into the fish, which is not an issue when they are wacky rigged. Lynn

Well since i dont know your main usage of the senko ill add that i am in the process of building a rodgeeks 4 series. The blank of choice will be the 73mhxs. Ill be pairing this with a bfs reel. Pending how it goes ill likely even use it for smallmouth tube fishing on the big waters.

Asking around and the PB731MXF is a little more powerful but significantly faster. 73 compared to 68.

Point Blank seems to be the way to go for a fast Blank. I just wish those NRX numbers were available so one could know for certain

If you have the NRX rod you can do the common cents measurements yourself. Just follow the instructions given in the common cents articles.
[www.common-cents.info]

Norm

Matthew,
Please unhide your email

I'm certainly not trying to start a debate, nor am I disparaging Point Blank rod blanks, I'm simply relaying pertinent information.

But unless something has changed since earlier threads concerning the subject, the numbers provided for Point Blank blanks are not CCS numbers. Point Blank uses different parameters to obtain their numbers. Choosing between two blanks strictly by the published numbers could be inconclusive.

too many desparities in what Point Blank lists. The PB731MHF says "it will easily handle 1 1/4oz" but in their hard specs it says only 1 ounce, however, real world is only 3/4 or so I was told when I complained to them. Not to mention their tip sizes are not correct as to what they have listed for that blank as well. They list a 5 for the tip.... Nope it is a 4.5, they also list 12-20 for the mono ratings yet their stickers say 8-17. I think that I will stay with my other choices. Their blanks are light, but that is probably because they lack the power for what they list. Yes, I have told Point Blank about this, "they are working on it" was their response, that was months ago..... must be a lot of work.

I have built on several point blanks for my self and others and they are great, light and responsive, no complaints. I use mine for inshore speckled trout and redfish, and large mouth bass using soft plastics(weighted and unweighted. I also own 4 St Croix V rods that I built, they are also very nice, no complaints with them either. I do not have a clear favorite between these two brands. I do not think you can go wrong with either. I have also built on the NFC HM blanks although they are very nice, I do not think they are that much better for the extra money you pay, but that's my opinion. Everyone has different opinions on what they like, and they may not be what I like. There are a lot of very good blanks out there these days even some of the less expensive brand are very good, and I enjoy fishing with them also. As far as cc numbers are concerned Point Blank is one of few brands, if not the only one, that has even attempted to give cc numbers. I have not seen anything to indicate why some believe the cc numbers are not accurate, I asked this question In a previous post, but did not get an answer. I do not know of another blank manufacturer that advertises such numbers with their blanks.
Norm

Chaps, appreciate the feedback. It's like being a child in a candy store with so much on offer. Your valuable wisdom is much appreciated

Pac Bay publishes CCS numbers for their Quickline series of rod blanks. Specifically the IP numbers and the AA numbers. And while I have built on two of the Quickline blanks, I haven't tested them via CCS to see if their numbers are accurate. I will say I have CCS tested 3 of my factory rods, and the Quickline blanks (both rods built on the same blank) I built on, behaved like a factory rod I tested with similar numbers.

It was actually nice being able to buy a blank with an idea of how it would perform compared to a rod I was already familiar with.

As to whether or not Point Blank's numbers are accurate. I have no reason to believe that they aren't ..... for the way they test their blanks.

I will say that based on the parameters Point Blank uses to test their blanks, versus the parameters of CCS, it's easy to see why a Point Blank blank would test lighter than a blank tested using CCS. They deflect their blanks a lower percentage of the blank's length, than CCS does.

David, where is it published how the Point Blanks are tested? I am interested in this and have been looking for this info since it came up in a previous discussion. Did not know about the CCS numbers for the PAC Bay Quicline blanks. Looked in the PAC Bay catalog and there they were. Wished more companies would do this. Have not used quickline blanks before, but I think I will try one. Thanks for the info.
Norm

Norman, I don't know for a fact if the method of how Point Blank attains their numbers is published or not. I do however remember Jim Ising posting the particulars in a past thread on this site.

[rodbuilding.org]

As you can see from the linked thread there is or was some confusion with the Point Blank method, and CCS. I must say that while searching for the linked thread I came across a thread in which Jim posted and he stated that Point Blank is now posting CCS numbers in their catalog.

[pointblankrods.com]

This is the first I've seen the RDA numbers (Point Blank's testing terminology) and CCS numbers side by side. As I suspected, Point Blank's AA numbers are vastly different than CCS numbers. I was disappointed to see that Point Blank posted RDA power numbers, and ERN, CCS numbers. I'm a bass fisherman. I have no idea how ERN relates to power. I would have loved to see them post IP, CCS numbers.

From looking at their power numbers, I have no doubt that they're considerably lighter than a CCS measured blank would be.

Anyhow ...... I didn't want to start a debate ...... just trying to pass on pertinent information.

Oh and Norman? I think you'll like a Quickline blank if you try one. They're very light, and responsive thin walled blanks, with great sensitivity. The two I've built on thus far have been almost perfectly straight, and have a beautiful flawless gloss black finish. They really are very sweet blanks. I built two spinning rods on QLSJ782 blanks, and absolutely love them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/21/2016 08:28AM by David Baylor.

David, thank you very much for the information it is greatly appreciated. I do remember these threads and do remember Jim stating that he would also use CCS numbers. This is where I became confused because in a more recent thread there where questions concerning that the CCS number may not be accurate. You are right I do not know how ERN converts to IP, there is not a linear correlation between them, all I know is that higher the ERN the higher IP. So yesterday afternoon I decided I would measure my PB701MF blank by CCS, but I ran out of pennies before I got to the 1/3 mark. I do know that the RDA number given for this blank (460 gm) is not even close to to my partial IP measurement; I ran out of pennies at 220 (550gm) and still had several inches to go before reaching the 1/3 deflection mark. I did pull the blank down to the 1/3 mark and got an AA number very close to the published AA of 78. So I think the listed ERN of 23.1 may be accurate. The IP/ERN table in the CCS articles only goes to an ERN of 16 (173 cents or 432,5gm). I would like to know how to convert ERNs above 16 to IP, and vice versa.
Norm