Them There New Fangled Beachcasters - are they worth it?

**uobroin** · 21-04-2007, 22:36

Recently got back into the old beach fishing after an absence of 25 years +. I have ABU gear that's held up well due to proper care and storage. I normally use Atlantic 484CS + ABU (none of yer Garcia pollution) Ambassadeur 6500C or Atlantic 434 + Ambassadeur 6000. I can case 110-120 metres. No problem. These rods are 11.5 feet for those who don't know.

A trip to the tackle dealer lately and I am shocked. These modern beachcasters are mostly 15 and 16 feet long - "continental influence" they say. And pricey too.

Anyways, the reviews say these big rods will help me cast a lot further. I don;t quite get this as surely technique is a critical factor, other things equal. Is it true I can expect to be able to cast a lot further further with say a 16 foot Shakespeare K2 without having to adjust my technique too much? Or is it all marketing?

**cap'nhaddock** · 22-04-2007, 00:08

The fish still live the same distance from shore as they have always done, if you used to catch then you will now.
I have a 484 and it is a great rod to fish with, I got it secondhand in 1978, I was advised then to put a 4oz weight in the butt to balance it if you were going to hold the rod for any lehgth of time.... I notice that this trick is now back in fashion as a 'new idea'
The 484 was capable of far greater distance than 110/120 metres;

modern rods do not have the bite detection of the old Abu rod.

**STAN M** · 22-04-2007, 08:41

I see and get to play with tens of dozens of beach rods every year. Of the modern ones the majority are good, some are very good a few are excellent and some are poor.

I also get to play with a lot of the older ones ( 20 years plus old) and in comparison to even the "poor" modern ones the vast majority (but not all) of the older ones are cumbersome heavy, poor actioned and not worth the bother.

But, having said that, one of the old ones does stick out like a sore thumb and that is the Atlantic 484 (and 464). That is a rod that stands the test of time.

The 484 is well worth using and, as has been said, chucks a lead a lot further than a hundred yards or so. Also good actioned and bite detection. Certainly it was a bit heavy with the alloy butt section. I`m not up on tournament casting but I seem to remember 484`s being used to hit distances in the 200 bracket, may be wrong.

If cut down it also makes one of the best tope or up-tiding rods around.

**cupboardlad** · 22-04-2007, 08:55

i've got a 484 , and to be totaly honest they are a good rod , but compared to the modern rods incredibly heavy and the butt is way too thick for my little hands,
modern rods are a pleasure to use and dont rust up like the old uns,
go into your tackle shop and pick a few up , you will see what i mean

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
cuberd

**Pelamid** · 22-04-2007, 09:32

The ABU 484 was a great rod for that time. There are plenty around today - but I doubt if they will be in such good nick.
Seem to remember it was Nigel Forrest (Breakaway Tackle Co.) that was using the Abu rods to set some casting records for that era. Was it Peter Bagnell Before Nigel?
Certainly those rods were capable of 200yds then.
Good tip but heavy by todays standards.

Don't forget you are 25 years older. I bought a Greys Tripplex 14' when my joints got sore - it really has helped. Slower casting action but well balanced and a good tip for bite detection.

Treat yourself - you know you want to.

**cap'nhaddock** · 22-04-2007, 09:38

Quote from Peter Bagnall,
http://www.peterbagnall.co.uk/Home%2...0Me_page_2.htm
"I also designed fishing rods for the international company of ABU including their most successful ever beachcasting rod named the Atlantic 484. My longest cast with that rod was on a demonstration in Barcelona when I cast 232 metres with a 4oz weight."
that would be good enough for me .
the weight issue is no problem if the rod is on a tripod, it would be if you hold it all the time.
25 years ago people did not fret all the time about the distance they could cast, they got on and caught fish; ie they went fishing not casting.

**Ajohn** · 22-04-2007, 16:39

I've owned and used the longest k2 but sold it in favour of my 13ft rods. They do allow a slower cast but I'm inclined to think that the ultra long overhead cast aspect of them is very overstated unless you are very powerfully built and get a very stiff one. The problem is leverage - the lead is further away from you so it's harder to move. Having said that though a moderately paced cast can store quite a lot of energy in the rod and this will yield reasonable distances. I found a gain with a straight overhead thump facing the direction of the cast but things weren't so clear cut standing sideways as I usually do. I generally use what some call a deep water cast. The left hand goes down and the right up starting with the rod at shoulder height or a bit lower. It's easier to get a long swing this way. This cast overpowers many beach casters especially from 10 or more years ago and felt like hard work with 6 mtr K2.

John

**uobroin** · 22-04-2007, 21:59

Thanks everyone - these contributions are very useful. I think I'm going to stick with the 484CS for a bit before committing to a more "modern" rod. Cheers.

**crazyplums** · 23-04-2007, 09:21

if you want to buy a new rod, and want to stick with abu, they still make some very nice rods still, and aren't priced stupid !

suveran, conolon range, plently of them ! have two myself.

**dobbin** · 23-04-2007, 11:12

Originally Posted by crazyplums

if you want to buy a new rod, and want to stick with abu, they still make some very nice rods still, and aren't priced stupid !

suveran, conolon range, plently of them ! have two myself.

I gave up fishing quite a few years ago only to start up again. I own a k2 16ft 8in only to find that it is completely unsuitable to a chap of my build Im getting better results from a shakespear mustang and it was cheaper.