Mackenzie dtx g2 spey 14ft #9

neilt

Active member
Messages
666
Reaction score
88
Location
Perth
Here’s a guide from shakespeare that should help. Use the AFTM 9 rating as your starting point.
781BDC65-A1FF-48CA-AE0B-B6D525C92E3E.jpeg
 

Zamora

Active member
Messages
161
Reaction score
83
Location
Finland
That Shakespeare’s table won’t help, because Mackenzies rods are usually one class stronger than the class marked in the rod. I would look shooting heads around 40g, someone else maybe 42g. If you like longer lines, maybe Mackenzies own 55ft 9/10 spey line would suit it. Depends so much about personal preferences.
 

leckytech

Member
Messages
976
Reaction score
22
I have a 42g G2 SH I bought off here a while back, never used it, yours for £20, it’s rated 10/11 I think. I can put up a pic if you like, still boxed.
 

Night Hawk

Member
Messages
253
Reaction score
15
Can any one please advise what line/grains would suit this rod best, for general over head and single Spey casting?
Thanks

Dave
Scott Mackenzie's 42 grams (no 9) shooting heads would be perfect for the 14' 9 weight DTX G2. The line has been developed and designed specifically for the rod.
 

Stephen76

New member
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
I have Mackenzie rods along with Mackenzie Spey and shooting head lines , the lines go great with they rods. I’d go for the Spey line if your talking about overhead casting.you should e mail Mackenzie flyfishing for advice if your still not sure
 

Hemmy

Well-known member
Messages
3,747
Reaction score
221
I use the 14 ftalong with all the other lengths....
In
My opinion the 44 will be too heavy in normal conditions and I would not like to overhead cast it at all.
The rod will take heavy lines when windy and I have successfully used heavy skagits on it (not overhead casting).
My advice is stick to the weights McKenzie recommends.....he used to display recommendations on his website
Cracking rod by the way
 

neilt

Active member
Messages
666
Reaction score
88
Location
Perth
That Shakespeare’s table won’t help, because Mackenzies rods are usually one class stronger than the class marked in the rod. I would look shooting heads around 40g, someone else maybe 42g. If you like longer lines, maybe Mackenzies own 55ft 9/10 spey line would suit it. Depends so much about personal preferences.
Well look at the No10's then - and what you're saying is the rod's wrong not the table.
I've got two MacKenzie rods and loads of lines - these rods do take a heavier line than the rating on the rod - like B&W's. But they're good with the rod rating too.
Personally I think the tables a great reference for AFTM's to grammes and to grains.
Sorry it's no use to you Zamorra.
 

Zamora

Active member
Messages
161
Reaction score
83
Location
Finland
Well look at the No10's then - and what you're saying is the rod's wrong not the table.
I've got two MacKenzie rods and loads of lines - these rods do take a heavier line than the rating on the rod - like B&W's. But they're good with the rod rating too.
Personally I think the tables a great reference for AFTM's to grammes and to grains.
Sorry it's no use to you Zamorra.
Well, sorry to see that your great experience with the Mackenzie rods and lines wasn’t well expressed in your first post to the topic. Maybe you should think expressing your thoughts more clearly in future?

Still, Dave has little experience about the rod he has, and that’s why he was asking the recommendations. Offering "standard" aftm table doesn’t help if the rod is not in that scale. Also, I believe that people has quite wide personal preferences, someone like lighter loading and some deeper, some short and some longer lines. On the orher hand, I admit that the aftm table helps if you know that the class of the rod fits to table, but without having a clue about it, it can be total nonsense. Also there are so wide selection of casters, rods and actions that it is hard to find suitable lines without testing wide variety to users own hands. Look for example Rio’s line recommendations, there are always two different caster recommendations for different lines. I for example have found myself being either middle of the recommendations, or near the lighter one.

Thankfully there are some true gentelmen in here, and Scott himself, whom are willing truly to help others and not just mocking others when showing that some information is not actually helping to find the answer to the question.

Good evening,

Z ?
 

neilt

Active member
Messages
666
Reaction score
88
Location
Perth
Well, sorry to see that your great experience with the Mackenzie rods and lines wasn’t well expressed in your first post to the topic. Maybe you should think expressing your thoughts more clearly in future?

Still, Dave has little experience about the rod he has, and that’s why he was asking the recommendations. Offering "standard" aftm table doesn’t help if the rod is not in that scale. Also, I believe that people has quite wide personal preferences, someone like lighter loading and some deeper, some short and some longer lines. On the orher hand, I admit that the aftm table helps if you know that the class of the rod fits to table, but without having a clue about it, it can be total nonsense. Also there are so wide selection of casters, rods and actions that it is hard to find suitable lines without testing wide variety to users own hands. Look for example Rio’s line recommendations, there are always two different caster recommendations for different lines. I for example have found myself being either middle of the recommendations, or near the lighter one.

Thankfully there are some true gentelmen in here, and Scott himself, whom are willing truly to help others and not just mocking others when showing that some information is not actually helping to find the answer to the question.

Good evening,

Z ?
Wow
I tried to help and try to help in many of my posts.
I did not mock or criticise anyone.
Good evening.
 

Kin36

Member
Messages
50
Reaction score
15
I have the rod and found the Mackenzie 42 multi tip to be spot on. Mackenzie heads often a little longer than others and comparisons aren’t always straightforward


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Rennie

Well-known member
Messages
5,620
Reaction score
1,369
Location
Gods County
I've the 16ft DTX, its rated 11 but handles Scotts own 10/11 lines admirably.I can whole heartedly recommend the G3 Spey line, it really flies off that rod and on my 15ft Loomis NRX too.
Its not a bad observation that the rods will handle a bit more, but maybe 1/2 a line size and not a full size?.
As said earlier in the thread Scotts line match his rods perfectly, you really couldn't go wrong matching them up together.
Pedro.
 

dave1959

Active member
Messages
290
Reaction score
72
Location
Middlesbrough North Yorkshire
Right lads, theres been a bit of a ball up here i'm afraid. When i ordered the rod which is used but in superb condition, the rod was advertised as a DTX G2, so i asked the question on here regarding line weight. When the rod arrived, it did not have a rod bag, just the tube. I remember clearly the picture advertising the rod showed the rod laying on top of its bag. I contacted the store before really looking over the rod and they said they would send a Mackenzie FX1 bag for replacement. When i checked the rod, its actually a DTX not a DTX G2 as advertised. It even has a label on the handle put on by the shop which says DTX G2. I'm sure its a mistake but i had already ordered the 42g that line members/Scott advised on here. Now reading in the line section, a 42g line is ok for a DTX, so that seems fine, but i wondered what members think of the DTX rod? Thanks.
 

gerardemmanuel

New member
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi Fishermen! I have got an Atlas DTX Mackenzie 14,9 ft. What is your advice about the SH? Mackenzie says 44g. I would like to find one (second hand) 44g Floating.
Thank you so much
Gérard
 
Top