Reel size nomenclature?

[Padre]

 Perhaps an obvious question to everyone else here, but I'm in the dark. Can someone tell me what the different reel size numbers - 4/0, 6/0, etc. - actually mean? I'm familiar with those designations with regards to hook sizes, but how do they workmformreels? Are they universal? Or at least consistent from one maker to another? How did they come to be used?

Thanks in advance,
Kevin

[Robert Janssen]

Very condensed version for lack of time to write more expansively:

The /O designations don't "mean" anything, really. There is a factoid of popular etymology which contends that the /O stands for Ocean or Offshore. However, this is likely not true.

The /O size designations have been in use for a long time, beginning with the Vom Hofes, around the turn of the last century.

It may well be derived from the /O designation of hooks, as you mentioned, having to do with the number of drawings needed to form the proper wire gauge.

I gotta go. Might add more later.

.

.

[Bucktail]

I always thought they corresponded to the recommended line test.  3/0 = 30 lb., 4/0 = 40 lb., 6/0 = 60 lb., etc.

[Keta]

At one time Penn International 20, 30, 50, 80 reels were named for the line weight but not now.

[Bryan Young]

I always thought they corresponded to the recommended line test.  3/0 = 30 lb., 4/0 = 40 lb., 6/0 = 60 lb., etc.

maybe its max line rating because a 3/0 reel was known as a 20# class reel, 4/0 was a 30# class reel, and so forth.

All speculation at this point.

[RowdyW]

The /0 designations are hold overs from the days of linen line. They also had weight ratings ranging from 18 to 54 lbs. The most popular sizes were 27 & 36 for surf fishing.      Rudy

[alantani]

i thought that 1/0, 2/0 etc. meant 1 Ocean, 2 Ocean......

[Robert Janssen]

We had a long discussion about this with the historians at ORCA a few years ago.

So anyway, the /0 system is a largely arbitrary system whose origins have long since fallen into obscurity, if they were ever known.

(the O for Ocean theory fails by reason of its own redundancy: If you have a 9/O reel, then of course it is for ocean fishing. You don't need an O to tell you that.  Like having a battleship, marked W for War.)

By will or by happenstance, the system was adapted by most manufacturers, and size designations coincide rather well. That is to say, for example a 6/0 Pflueger Atlapac is roughly the same size as a Kovalovsky 6/0, or a Fin-Nor 6/0 or a Gladiator 6/0.

The size range is still in use by some manufacturers today, although many more now use the IGFA line-class designations of 20, 30, 50 and 80 and so on, which is also very similar across a broad range of reels. Where or when or by who this system came into use is not entirely clear, although it may have been popularized the debut of the Penn International series in the mid 1960s. And like usual, other manufacturers followed suit.

And since the two systems follow one another quite nicely sizewise, it can be said that a 2½/0 = 20 lb class, 4/0 = 30 lb, 6/0 = 50 lb, 9/0 = 80 lb and so on.

And that's about it.

.

[redsetta]

Thanks Doc!

[Jeri]

Hi All,

The wisdom on reel sizing that was passed to me years ago by an angling mentor was that for the 'X/0' sizes you would subtract '1' from the number then multiply by '10', and that would give you the preferred line size for the reel, eg: 9/0 would be suitable for 80lb line, 6/0 for 50lb and so on. What the '0' part for the numbering system stood for was never explained.

Then with the development towards more formalised line classes and lever drag reels, the actual line class was on the designation, so a Penn 50 was designed for 50lb mono, etc. Offering a capacity something like 600yds of the designated line size for deliberate offshore fishing.

As things went on and the introduction of more manufacturers the numbering system seemed to lose its way. Shimano still recommend mono line sizes to their reels eg Trinidad 30 is designed for 30lb line and so on. Though with the TLD series they lost their way slightly in size relationship, because th only numerical logic was to double the size number, a TLD20 would be good for 40lb line, though I would hate to fill my much cherished TLD 5 with 10lb line, I would be winding for weeks.

However, Diawa really put the fox amongst the chickens, as their reels are much smaller for the designation number, so a SL50 might imply that it is suitable for 50lb line, it certainly would not be capacity compatible with say either a Penn 50 or Shimano 50. It would however, be suitable for 50lb line work on an 'inshore' type of fishing, as opposed to the heritage of the other manufacturers starting in an offshore arena.

ABU has some offshore lever drag reels and they were designated 20 & 30, and were compliant with the 600yd principle, but then their numbering system for smaller reels defied any sort of numerical logic, 6500, 7000, 7500??

Finnor have followed their offshore heritage with their recent introductions, and pretty much designated the reels to the line size they expect to be used on the reels, OFC 30 is a great 30lb class reel.

Then onto fixed spool reels, and there is absolutely no logic that I can see to the size numbers.

So, really apart from the obvious heritage logic from the designate offshore reels, there is no real logic to be drawn from the numbering of reels, and these days with the introduction of braids, the whole plot has gone out of the window. Especially as there are other problems that arise from the drags in the reels being able or unable to withstand the breaking strain of the lines that are capable of being loaded on the reels – Avet being a prime example, SX being maxed out at 9lb drag, which would perhaps be sufficient for 20lb mono, but certainly not for 40 or 50lb braid.

Perhaps at the end of the day we should direct the questions to all the major reel manufacturers, and ask that they formulate a system of size rating that they can all work with, so that the poor public can have a realistic chance of knowing what they are looking at in certain products. It was achieved with fly fishing lines, and has pretty much been the standard throughout the world – we all have a very good idea how a 6 weight rod and line will work with a 6 weight line.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Cheers from sunny Africa.

Jeri

[UKChris]

I think it best not to try to read too much into the /0 numbering, or even the 30, 50 etc but use them as a rough rule of thumb whatever their origin. A 6/0 from one maker is about the same size as a 6/0 from another, but then again it might not be. A 12/0 Everol is a lot bigger than a 12/0 Senator for example and as said before a 30 from one range is smaller than the 30 from another range made by the same company.

Also take the 'suggestion' that a 50 is meant to be used with 50lb line as a rough guide only; after all, how much 50lb line do you want to use? When I'm fishing 50lb for conger eels, 300 yards is more than enough; but for blue marlin I prefer at least half a mile of 50lb! So, for one I have 50lb on a 30W reel and for the other I have 50lb on an 80!

My suggestion is always to pick the line strength you want to use, then decide how much line you need and finally pick the reel that will hold it. If you are using mono, dacron or HDPE or a combination of two or more of these, that may influence you choice.

Just like the sizing of hooks, there ain't no rhyme nor reason to it  !

[floating doc]

Lots of interesting suggestions for the origin of the "-/0" designation for reel sizes.

I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion, but you may find this interesting.

We use this type of sizing to designate suture material sizes. Size 2/0 is heaver (thicker) than 3/0. By the time you get to 5/0 it's very fine suture, getting close to what I would use for thinks like oral surgery in a cat's mouth. For plastic surgery or a lacerated eyeball, it would be something like 6/0, although at that weight it gets hard to work with. If it's clear, it's hard to even see the stuff!

On the other end, #0 is pretty heavy stuff, and going up from there you get into some really thick suture material. If I was closing the abdomen on a great dane or rottweiler for example, I might want #0 or 1. For a horse, maybe #2 or 3, plus you double the suture.

[Robert Janssen]

Lots of interesting suggestions for the origin of the "-/0" designation...

I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion...

No. That makes perfect sense, at least with regards to fish hooks. How it applies to catgut and reels is still not clear, but not too far away.

I quote the tremendously knowledgeable fishing historian Dr Todd Larson:

"The /0 system of measurement for hooks was taken from one of the many attempts to standardize the wire industry internationally (type in "wire gauge conversion chart" in a search engine and you'll see that this is still a significant problem). As many probably know, a 3/0 actually means OOO (three zeros). It is shorthand to use the 3/0 measurement. So Mustad used the 4/0 to show that it was making this hook from standard 4/0 wire.

The measuring of reels by the /0 size I always assumed meant that this was either the standard or largest diameter line that could be used on this particular model. Thus an E.V.H. 2/0 would be rated for line the equivalent of 00 (2/0) in diameter."

well, from one thing to another then...

.

[melkapule]

We used 1/0, 3/0, 4/0 wire in the electric utility, larger number is bigger sized wire. Other larger wires were given circular mils designations.