I have a thing for Langley reels, specifically the 330 Lurecast and Target 340. It was a dream of mine to combine the two so I could have a level wind plus the free spooling capabilities of the Target. With the Target, the handle can be pulled outwards, disengaging it from the spool and level wind. My problem, finding a cheap Target to harvest the parts I needed. I put that in the back of my mind until I could stumble upon a Target for a price I was willing to pay.
Let's rewind back to early summer. I'm browsing Facebook Marketplace and see a nice looking Langley 330, asking price of $80. I looked at the photos, thought it was nice, but no way would I pay that much. As the months went by, it kept showing up in my feed and nope, not a taker. Fast forward to last Thursday, and I see it again, with the price lowered to $35. I bring up the ad and read through it, this happened to be a special reel. Mind you, I didn't read the ad previously but this time I did. This is one of six Langley 330s built by a gentleman named John Ceroszynski for the Chicago Casting Club some time ago. It has exactly what I was wanting to do, a Target drive gear and disengaging driveshaft, along with a cork arbor on the spool. This reel was built to cast in the 1/8, 1/4, and 3/8 tournament matches. I messaged the seller without hesitation and he told me that he and John work together at a Bass Pro in Indiana and that John is now 83 years old. When I got it, it didn't spin the greatest, but after I got down to it, this thing is a speedy little rocket. I'm going to spool it with some 10lb Mason braided nylon and take it to the trout streams. It's once wicked little knuckle buster. If it proves to be too speedy for me, I'm going to mill the palm side plates to accept a small array of neodymium magnets to keep it manageable. Such a sweet little reel.
Here's the before video.
And after.
Reel was cleaned in mineral spirits, all bushings polished with Simichrome, residue cleaned up, and lubed with TSI 301. I'm very happy with how this one came out.
That is slick!I am not familiar with those,but looks like it has ball bearings ;D
Quote from: jgp12000 on December 23, 2025, 05:47:51 PMThat is slick!I am not familiar with those,but looks like it has ball bearings ;D
Not a single bearing, this one is all bushings.
Very nice Rob. If you need to add magnets it may be easier to put them on the head plate side. There is room for three tall stacks of 1/4 inch diameter wafers opposite the bridge. On the tail plate side, the height of the stack is very limited. You can get five or six short stacks in there without interfering with the clicker but it is still barely enough magnetism.
Quote from: oc1 on December 23, 2025, 05:57:52 PMVery nice Rob. If you need to add magnets it may be easier to put them on the head plate side. There is room for three tall stacks of 1/4 inch diameter wafers opposite the bridge. On the tail plate side, the height of the stack is very limited. You can get five or six short stacks in there without interfering with the clicker but it is still barely enough magnetism.
Thanks! What my plan is, mill 4 1mm deep by 4mm holes and epoxy some steel M2 washers into the head plate, then I can experiment with different thicknesses and amounts of magnets. I saw a guy do this on another forum to both a Target 340 and Lurecast 330. He is able to cast from 2g on up with no end tension.
Sweet!
A lot of tournament guys still use Langleys. I have tuned up a couple. Luckily for me (and them :) ) their reel performance requirements are pretty minimal.
Interestingly, the reason that they like those Langleys is because they are light and simple. The most popular casting stroke for accuracy competition is a pretty vigorous wrist snap with a straight line (vs. arcing) flight path. They usually crank down a bit on the spool tension knob to control backlash. The smallest plug class is 1/4 ounce, and I don't think that they go past 80' for a target, so longer distances or very light payloads is not important for accuracy competition.
Therefore, less weight at the reel is helpful, but high level freespool performance and modern anti-backlash features: not as much for tournament casting. I would bet that this is also true for real life bass-style fishing with the same lure weights if you learn to cast tournament style. You can get some crazy-accurate casts through a tight window.
As mostly a saltwater two handed caster with conventional gear, I struggle with the tournament technique, but I am successful at providing some comic relief for these guys when they are practicing at the local casting pond.
-J
Quote from: tincanary on December 23, 2025, 06:28:32 PMmill 4 1mm deep by 4mm holes and epoxy some steel M2 washers into the head plate,
In my hands, the epoxy is the first thing to screw up. I use very light oil though and suspect it eventually creeps under the glue and gives way. Holding the magnets in place while the epoxy dries is a pain too unless you do them one at a time. They want to jump and squirm around. Modified wooden clothes pins do the trick..
I started using the magnetic rings with a countersunk hole (K&J Magnetics) and then attaching them to the side plate with a very small nut and bolt. The screw head needs to be tapered so it sits flush with the top of the magnet. Some might object to having the small nuts on the outside of the side plate; not me . On top of the 1/8" thick coutersunk magnet, stack 1/16" discs until the stack height is just right.
Bob, your nice little score certainly ended up in the right hands.
The tournament casters that I know don't like to use the centrifugal or mag brakes when they are using a more modern reel for accuracy competition. They turn the brake all the way off and use the spool tension knob. I think this is because it allows them to more accurately predict the amount of braking that they will get on casts at different distances. The amount of centrifugal or magnetic braking occurring is going to vary based on RPM, so it is trickier to know exactly how much braking that you are going to get, which effects accuracy.
For tincanary's case, it looks like the reel is being customized to be more of a BFS style reel, so I could see how it might make sense to mag it, but it is interesting to note that some modern features that make casting easier have some disadvantages as well.
I wonder how light of a payload the old timers could cast with a Langley and a well educated thumb.
-J
Ron McAlpin played around with magnets on a few Langleys over @ ORCA, here https://reeltalk.orcaonline.org/viewtopic.php?t=26395 and here https://reeltalk.orcaonline.org/viewtopic.php?t=26369
Quote from: jurelometer on December 24, 2025, 07:15:26 PMI wonder how light of a payload the old timers could cast with a Langley and a well educated thumb.
It's a distance game for me, but the Target will easily cast a Euro-nymphing "fly" in close quarters.
Quote from: Midway Tommy on December 25, 2025, 12:15:49 AMRon McAlpin played around with magnets on a few Langleys over @ ORCA, here https://reeltalk.orcaonline.org/viewtopic.php?t=26395 and here https://reeltalk.orcaonline.org/viewtopic.php?t=26369
Quote from: oc1 on December 25, 2025, 05:34:46 AMQuote from: jurelometer on December 24, 2025, 07:15:26 PMI wonder how light of a payload the old timers could cast with a Langley and a well educated thumb.
It's a distance game for me, but the Target will easily cast a Euro-nymphing "fly" in close quarters.
Interesting stuff.
I think the lesson that we should learn from this reel is that purposeful, functionality driven design matters. And that the functional requirements for a useful reel are not always the ones that we value the most as modern consumers. We pay a price (initial cost, durability, and yes, probably some performance) for all of the complexity that gets crammed into a modern reel.
Tommy can correct me if I get this wrong, but I think that the Langley baitcasters were made just after WWII by a company that fabricated aluminum aircraft parts during the war. The manufacturing methods used are primitive by modern standards, with lots of parts simply stamped out of thin aluminum, including the spool, with some pressed or riveted together.
But not only was that spool thin, it was also ported with a large arbor. The Langley spools were extremely light when loaded with line, which in the end can be more important for casting performance than stuff like having fancy ceramic bearings. The Target model weighs only 4 ounces. For you BFS fanatics- these were reels designed with BFS principles. Here is a shot of a Langley Lurecast spool from an interesting thread (https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=36106.0 (https://alantani.com/index.php?topic=36106.0))
(https://alantani.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=119559;image;thumb)
While I am intrigued a bit about the customization process you guys are playing with, I have to admit not fully understanding the point of hotrodding one of these reels. To me, the more interesting question is how well does a finely tuned stock Langley cast compared to something like an ABU 2500 with all the fancy BFS aftermarket parts, and what is the weight difference between the reels?
That $550 Japanese Target tribute reel (modernized, made from scratch) is also a bit baffling to me. Sure, it looks a bit like a Langley, but the beauty of the Langley for me was how they were able to make a relatively high performance reel with rudimentary manufacturing methods and simple design. If I was to build a new reel from scratch, I would rather take the principles that made the Langley successful, and take off from there with modern materials and processes. How simple and how light could I make a modern high performance knucklebuster?
-J
Dave, I wouldn't have a clue regarding Langley bait casters or their history. Conventional reels are way outside my area of knowledge and expertise. ;D
Quote from: Midway Tommy on December 25, 2025, 10:53:10 PMDave, I wouldn't have a clue regarding Langley bait casters or their history. Conventional reels are way outside my area of knowledge and expertise. ;D
Colby Sorrells wrote a book about Langley fishing products. A must-have for some. I think most of the Targets were sold in the 1956-1958 time frame. The most popular Langley fishing product was the Fish-De-Liar spring scale and tape measure gizmo. Remember those?
The Target handle screw versus handle nut, the green aluminum grasps versus brown plastic grasps, and the screw head shape all changed at some point. Also, an edge cover was added to the tail plate to make them more comfortable to palm.
I started buying-up Targets when they were about twenty to thirty bucks on the used market. Now they fetch closer to a hundred bucks.
I'm gonna have to keep an eye out for one of these if they show up reasonably priced. Then I'll be able to compare to a built out 2500c. But also the owner of this thread could also do so. It seems right up my alley either way. What are the gears made of?
Merry Christmas
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on December 26, 2025, 04:20:21 AMWhat are the gears made of?
Looks like brass main and steel pinion.
Quote from: tincanary on December 23, 2025, 05:17:53 PMI have a thing for Langley reels, specifically the 330 Lurecast and Target 340. It was a dream of mine to combine the two so I could have a level wind plus the free spooling capabilities of the Target. With the Target, the handle can be pulled outwards, disengaging it from the spool and level wind. My problem, finding a cheap Target to harvest the parts I needed. I put that in the back of my mind until I could stumble upon a Target for a price I was willing to pay.
Let's rewind back to early summer. I'm browsing Facebook Marketplace and see a nice looking Langley 330, asking price of $80. I looked at the photos, thought it was nice, but no way would I pay that much. As the months went by, it kept showing up in my feed and nope, not a taker. Fast forward to last Thursday, and I see it again, with the price lowered to $35. I bring up the ad and read through it, this happened to be a special reel. Mind you, I didn't read the ad previously but this time I did. This is one of six Langley 330s built by a gentleman named John Ceroszynski for the Chicago Casting Club some time ago. It has exactly what I was wanting to do, a Target drive gear and disengaging driveshaft, along with a cork arbor on the spool. This reel was built to cast in the 1/8, 1/4, and 3/8 tournament matches. I messaged the seller without hesitation and he told me that he and John work together at a Bass Pro in Indiana and that John is now 83 years old. When I got it, it didn't spin the greatest, but after I got down to it, this thing is a speedy little rocket. I'm going to spool it with some 10lb Mason braided nylon and take it to the trout streams. It's once wicked little knuckle buster. If it proves to be too speedy for me, I'm going to mill the palm side plates to accept a small array of neodymium magnets to keep it manageable. Such a sweet little reel.
Here's the before video.
And after.
Reel was cleaned in mineral spirits, all bushings polished with Simichrome, residue cleaned up, and lubed with TSI 301. I'm very happy with how this one came out.
not too bad at all. I guess we'll have to see how good you are with it this spring
Quote from: oc1 on December 25, 2025, 11:31:17 PMQuote from: Midway Tommy on December 25, 2025, 10:53:10 PMDave, I wouldn't have a clue regarding Langley bait casters or their history. Conventional reels are way outside my area of knowledge and expertise. ;D
Colby Sorrells wrote a book about Langley fishing products. A must-have for some. I think most of the Targets were sold in the 1956-1958 time frame. The most popular Langley fishing product was the Fish-De-Liar spring scale and tape measure gizmo. Remember those?
The Target handle screw versus handle nut, the green aluminum grasps versus brown plastic grasps, and the screw head shape all changed at some point. Also, an edge cover was added to the tail plate to make them more comfortable to palm.
I started buying-up Targets when they were about twenty to thirty bucks on the used market. Now they fetch closer to a hundred bucks.
Thanks!
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on December 26, 2025, 04:20:21 AMI'm gonna have to keep an eye out for one of these if they show up reasonably priced. Then I'll be able to compare to a built out 2500c. But also the owner of this thread could also do so. It seems right up my alley either way. What are the gears made of?
Merry Christmas
Steve can help you on alternate models, but I think that there are other interesting models that are available for much smaller money. The Streamlite 310 or 311 has a large arbor spool and weighs an insanely low 5 oz, which is not as low as a Target, but it does add a levelwind that you can remove if you are so inclined. Same for the Lurecast, which has a nice big arbor. I think that all of the models other than the Target have a handle that spins backwards when you cast. Don't know how tricky it would be to customize one to be like a Target. TinCanary has the perfect setup IMHO.
The folk here with more experience can provide better guidance, but of the few that I have gotten inside of, other than the handle knobs, there was little in terms of mechanical wear, even though they are used for hours of tournament practice. All of them had bent and/or sloppy handle knobs. And you have to use those tiny/light handles, as they spin during the cast. Corrosion was an issue, so look for a clean one.
If you do get a Langley, I would argue that you also need a short flexy rod with one of those stubby handles with the drop-down reel seat. You want to set it up so that you can get nice and comfy when thumbing the spool. Don't be afraid of using the spool tension knob for backlash control. That was how these reels were intended to be used.
And I'm looking forward to tincanary's report on fishing those custom Langleys.
-J
[And I'm looking forward to tincanary's report on fishing those custom Langleys.
J. ]
Real fishing on the water can end up being a completely different scenario than competing in a tournament atmosphere, that's for sure.
The challenge I'm facing now is finding suitable line. I was going to get some 10lb braided nylon from a place somewhat local to me, but I talked with another guy that fishes these and says it's very thick. He advised I use Cortland Micron 20lb Dacron or Gudebrod Meatmaster 6lb braided nylon. The Cortland is easy to find as it's used for fly reel backing, and the Gudebrod is out of production but pops up on eBay from time to time.
I see Shakespeare Wexford and/or Ashaway braided nylon in 8-12# test come up on eBay every once in awhile.
The tournament guys use modern gelspun braid with these reels. A few of the diehards stick to limp nylon mono. The limper mono is really friendly to cast.
Cortland is one of the thinner Dacrons for stated strength. Scientific Anglers is about the same. But 20 lb Dacron is about the same "effective diameter*" as 80 lb gelspun braid, which seems awfully thick for tossing 1/8 oz or smaller lures. I am familiar with Gudebrod braided mono, but nothing below 20lb. I expect thst even 6 or 8 lb braided mono is pretty chunky stuff, much larger than 20 lb Dacron.
Dunno why someone would want to use Dacron or braided mono except for fishing these reels with something closer to period correct line.
-J
* Multi-fiber lines are not solid or round and can have variable density in the weave. They have no diameter. Instead, they are measured by denier, which is the weight of the line for a given length. The diameter that we see on a spool of Dacron or gelspun braid is the manufacturer's representation of monofilament equivalence. I.e., if 0.01 inch diameter mono would fill the spool with the same length of line, the manufacturer would list the braid diameter as 0.01, plus or minus some fudge factor for marketing purposes.
The PE rating on Japanese braids is the equivalent of of denier, but using different units.
It depends on the quarry and conditions. The old-time tournament casters used silk tournament lines; especially the one with the reddish brown and white variegated color (can't remember the name offhand). I've never found any that had been stored well enough to actually fish with today. It hasn't been made in many years and silk deteriorates when there is any moisture.
By the time Langley came on the market, monofilament was also available. But, it was still very stiff by today's standards. You could consider monofilament, braided nylon or braided Dacron to be period correct.
When the tolerances were not as good as they are in modern reels, there were some advantages to a larger diameter line. Spectra casts wonderfully because of the small size but you have to learn to keep it from getting under the spool.
I fish mine with 110 yards of 20 lb PowerPro. With a larger diameter there is not enough capacity/yardage for the quarry. With a smaller diameter I can't see it well enough.
Thanks everybody. I'm not concerned about the line being period correct. I've even considered running modern polyethylene but my only concern is wear on the line guide. I do have a few spares on hand if need be.
I personally wouldn't worry about gelspun. This is why:
Modern polyethylene (AKA gelspun) has a lower coefficient of friction than nylon or polyester (Dacron). More slippery = less wear. I have some fly rods with stainless snake guides that have pulled on hundreds (maybe over a thousand) fish with 8 or 10 lbs of drag on gelsun backing. No grooving at all. I think that the whole braid wearing guides thing is overblown.
And the wear happens when the line is under heavier load. Sliding friction is a function of CoF and compressive force, and there ain't much force from the line against the levelwind when you are casting or winding in a lure. You have to be pulling hard on something with a lot of line passing through the levelwind. Not a likely scenario when using this kind of reel.
One small caveat: There is a small risk if you constantly drag any type of braided line over a bottom with some grit in it. The grit gets trapped in the weave. Gelspun with a waxy coating (when fresh) might be a tiny bit worse. You will see the braid getting fuzzy if this is the case, because the softer fibers will fail first. Monofilament might be a bit safer in this scenario. Perhaps this was the origin of the "braid ruining guides" anecdote.
-J
I use inexpensive and very light stainless guides (Microguides from Janns Netcraft) and would be proud as punch if I could wear them out.
Quote from: tincanary on December 28, 2025, 05:17:25 PMThe challenge I'm facing now is finding suitable line. He advised I use Cortland Micron 20lb Dacron or Gudebrod Meatmaster 6lb braided nylon. The Cortland is easy to find as it's used for fly reel backing, and the Gudebrod is out of production but pops up on eBay from time to time.
I have the Meatmaster 15lb on a Heddon Mark IV 3200 and it works remarkably well.. limp, handles well, doesn't tangle easily. It's not outrageously thick, entirely fishable. The 6lb would be just right if you can find it.
Quote from: oc1 on December 28, 2025, 07:46:02 PMWhen the tolerances were not as good as they are in modern reels, there were some advantages to a larger diameter line.
That's exactly why I switched to the Gudebrod on the Heddon baitcaster - started with a modern mono, which dived behind the spool on the first hint of trouble, then cut itself on the sharp internals of the reel. The Gudebrod backlashes less, and stays out of trouble when I do that..
My Shakespeare 1740 Tournament tiny knucklebuster looks much like the Langley, spool not ported though. Pull on handle puts it into freespool for casting. It's currently loaded with the original 4lb silk line which is now about 1-2lb. My idea was to put some light braid 10lb or so which should be similar in thickness to the silk, then take it out when the ponds are stocked with trout.. the 10lb should be enough that I don't break off the fish with the direct drive ;-)
I've been eying the Langley Targets for some time, but they tend to go for quite large amounts, more than I want to spend on idle curiosity.
also on Langley, I have a Langley Riffle fly reel, which is very much functional for 5wt and lighter lines. It even has a counterbalanced spool, unusual in an inexpensive reel from the 40s..
Quote from: DougK on December 30, 2025, 10:46:59 PMMy Shakespeare 1740 Tournament tiny knucklebuster looks much like the Langley, spool not ported though. Pull on handle puts it into freespool for casting. It's currently loaded with the original 4lb silk line which is now about 1-2lb.
Coincidentally, the 1740 is my second favorite reel for daily fishing after the Target. The spool weight is an issue though.
Quote from: oc1 on December 31, 2025, 04:57:04 AMQuote from: DougK on December 30, 2025, 10:46:59 PMMy Shakespeare 1740 Tournament tiny knucklebuster looks much like the Langley, spool not ported though. Pull on handle puts it into freespool for casting. It's currently loaded with the original 4lb silk line which is now about 1-2lb.
Coincidentally, the 1740 is my second favorite reel for daily fishing after the Target. The spool weight is an issue though.
Does the lack of a levelwind on the Target bother you much when you are working lures? I guess it could depend on the fishing method used.
-J
Quote from: jurelometer on December 31, 2025, 06:32:24 PMDoes the lack of a levelwind on the Target bother you much when you are working lures?
not oc1 but..
I have fished a modern BFS reel, and forgot to thread the line through the levelwind. at that point I'd spent fifteen minutes tying knots and threading gossamer through tiny guides, decided to fish without the levelwind rather than do that again.
This was while throwing 2g minnow lures for trout in a river. I fished the rest of the day without problems.
The narrow spool helps. Also, used to fish old Penn baitcasters with no levelwind, in the salt sea; it's possible I have an atavistic memory of that and do line lay without consciously thinking about it..
can't see it in the pic, but this is one of the fish caught without benefit of levelwind ;-)
Quote from: jurelometer on December 31, 2025, 06:32:24 PMDoes the lack of a levelwind on the Target bother you much when you are working lures? I guess it could depend on the fishing method used.
I abandoned levelwind mechanisms long before happening upon the Target. It's a non-issue once you develop the muscle memory to guide line onto the spool by hand without having to look at it or think about it. Not having a levelwind does change how the outfit is held though. You have to either hold the rod immediately in front of the reel or palm the reel. Holding the rod below the reel wouldn't work.
Comfortable "palming" reels are a different topic. Size matters, as does the shape of the tail plate. The little Target, Shakes 1740 and first-generation 100-yard baitcasters tuck nicely into the palm of your hand and allow you to level the line while gripping it firmly enough to set the hook when the time comes. The advent of asymmetric reels (as opposed to round reels) was largely a response to the desire for a more comfortable palming reel; hence the Shimano Bantam and all the modern baitcasters that followed. The tail plate of an ABU 5000 is wide enough and thick enough to make palming difficult.
Quote from: DougK on December 31, 2025, 07:19:25 PMnot oc1 but..
I have fished a modern BFS reel, and forgot to thread the line through the levelwind. at that point I'd spent fifteen minutes tying knots and threading gossamer through tiny guides, decided to fish without the levelwind rather than do that again.
This was while throwing 2g minnow lures for trout in a river. I fished the rest of the day without problems.
The narrow spool helps. Also, used to fish old Penn baitcasters with no levelwind, in the salt sea; it's possible I have an atavistic memory of that and do line lay without consciously thinking about it..
can't see it in the pic, but this is one of the fish caught without benefit of levelwind ;-)
Quote from: oc1 on December 31, 2025, 08:04:26 PMI abandoned levelwind mechanisms long before happening upon the Target. It's a non-issue once you develop the muscle memory to guide line onto the spool by hand without having to look at it or think about it. Not having a levelwind does change how the outfit is held though. You have to either hold the rod immediately in front of the reel or palm the reel. Holding the rod below the reel wouldn't work.
Comfortable "palming" reels are a different topic. Size matters, as does the shape of the tail plate. The little Target, Shakes 1740 and first-generation 100-yard baitcasters tuck nicely into the palm of your hand and allow you to level the line while gripping it firmly enough to set the hook when the time comes. The advent of asymmetric reels (as opposed to round reels) was largely a response to the desire for a more comfortable palming reel; hence the Shimano Bantam and all the modern baitcasters that followed. The tail plate of an ABU 5000 is wide enough and thick enough to make palming difficult.
I grew up fishing lures with larger conventional levelwind-free reels, but some retrieve types are hard to impossible. Really fast winding, or swinging the tip to chug the lure. I would think that going small on both the reel and line would make it super-annoying, but I never tried it without a levelwind.
If I was slow bouncing a small jig, or steady winding a spinner, I could see it as more doable.
Thanks for the firsthand experience.
-J
Quote from: jurelometer on January 01, 2026, 01:17:59 AMIf I was slow bouncing a small jig, or steady winding a spinner, I could see it as more doable.
-J
Slow bouncing a jig is my game; pelagics are not.