Musky Glenn

Any Way Around So Much Weight?

19 posts in this topic

I am in the process of making my own 10" Hell Hound. This is a musky lure that weighs 10.4 oz. It is a two hand throwing lure. I made my body out of "brick mold pvc" and it measures 10" long by 2" high and is one inch thick. Not a lot of character to these lures. The ends just round over and they glide side to side as you pull them. In order to get this to sink at the correct speed, I need to add 2.75 oz. of lead to the front hook area, 2 oz. at the middle hook area and .75 oz of lead to the rear hook area. That is a total of 5.5 oz. of lead total. This is a big profile bait that works and it needs to be that big. My question is, to displace that much water and sink at the rate it needs to, does it have to weigh approx. 10.4 oz. Can I build any other way and displace that much water and cut the weight by a couple of oz.

I respect your ideas, that is why I came here to ask this question. Thank you for any ideas you may have. Below is an address to view what the lure looks like.

http://www.muskyshop.com/modules/cart/products.php/nav_id/10/page/1/id/2859/name/Drifter10Hellhound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn,

As long as you are making that size lure, and want it to sink at the rate you want, I'm afraid you're stuck.

Vodkaman Dave did a chart on this, I think. It has to do with an old Greek named Archimedes, who bragged so much about the fish he caught on his "secret" bait that the gods got pissed, so they cursed him, and made water so dense that his lure wouldn't work any more.

I guess the moral of that story is if you have a bait the works, keep it to yourself.

Anyway, in order for a lure to sink, it has to weigh more than the volume of the water it displaces.

I don't know that particular lure, but it sounds like a sub-surface glider.

The only way to make the lure lighter, and still have it that big, is to make it hollow, with through chambers, so water can take the place of the lure material. I don't know if that's possible without totally changing action of the lure.

Sorry.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to make the lure lighter, and still have it that big, is to make it hollow, with through chambers, so water can take the place of the lure material. I don't know if that's possible without totally changing action of the lure.

Sorry.

Mark

That is an interesting idea. I would think hollowing out the middle of the bait from the rear would have the least impact on action. Just drill the the bait out from the rear leaving a void in the middle . Start small and keep increasing the bit till the desired effect is achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is that the amount of weight you tryed on the lure to get it to sink or are you going by the weight of the one posted by you?,if your going by the orig. weight you might get by with alot less weight with your bait and it won't take and wear you out casting it,i make a few glide baits that sink at 1-2 feet per second and only add 3 oz to a 9inch bait to get that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crankpaint, That is the amount of lead I have attached to the hooks to get it to sink at the rate I desire. This was by reading the weight stamped on each sinker and adding them up. I have not weighted the entire lure and weights but they seem to be in the 10 oz. range.

Thanks for all the comments, I kind of figured it would be that way. Neat idea about boring the lure out, I may give that a try. Musky Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark covered the Archimedes side of things with his usual flare, LOL. The only other way is to reduce the amount of lead is make the lure out of a denser material.

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would try to make the body cross section somewhat more narrow to reduce the volume of the body , ...but leave the outer silhouette , ...your bait would become lighter and require less ballast .

Should not be a big problem in terms of a glide action , but would maybe reduce casting performance , as the bait gets to flutter easier on flight .

If a nose plane or similar should be neccessary to generate a particular swimming action , you could leave this particualr location wider that the rest of the body cross secton .

As Dave said , you can also use a denser material , which would not reduce the general weight but the amount of lead ballast neccessary .

I have always been into the opinion , that one should match the material to the size of the lure !

Useless to make a 6"+ bait out of balsa , 'cause it requires a big load of lead to perform well , whereas making a smaller 3" bait out of beechwood or maple would cause the lure to sink like a brick after having placed a trim weight or also lead into an improper relation between keel ballast at belly side and buoancy of body material at upper side of the lure(a crankbait made like this is much more likely to blow out rather than one made from more buoyant timber , ....just because it would lack buoancy at the upper part to force the lure back after canting sideward) .

Just my :twocents: , .....good luck , Dieter :yay:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you use PVC decking instead of trimboard, it's more dense, so it will require adding less ballast to achieve the same weight, but it may affect how the lure moves.

I prefer decking for my larger floating walking baits, because it does require less ballast. The decking I use is still plenty buoyant enough to float the lure with (2) 2/0 Owner trebles and split rings. And I always have to add ballast to the belly, past the mid point, to get the lure to walk correctly.

But, for you, a sinking lure that is identical in size and shape to the original will have to weigh the same to achieve the same sink rate.

Dieter is right about removing some of the buoyant material from the sides, so it will sink more easily and weigh less overall, but I have no idea how that lure moves, so I can't comment on how to make it without losing the action that makes it successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark, I didn't see any trim boards that were a full inch thick at my Lowes. All I had to do with the brick mold was to cut off the design section and it left just what I needed. I'm not sure that 3/4" wouldn't work just as good and it should save approx. 2.5 oz. The weight is drying in the first one now. My next one will be a bored out version. Such a simple idea, hope it works like you suggested.

This lure isn't a secret weapon, but it is a good one. I fished one of my buddies lures Sat. for about an hour and it is a hand full to throw. I have some heavy action musky rods and I didn't have one stiff enough to do this one justice. Between the three of us we raised (saw) 20 muskies and didn't hook a one of them. But we were fired up all day long. (14 Hours) The good color in the 10 inch version was "lemon head". I used an 8" hell hound in a custom color that I raised 5 with. This lure only weighs about 3.5 oz. a world of difference. (I just hate the idea of paying $29.00 for one musky lure, $18. is certainly high enough. I have mostly done repaints till now, but have enjoyed building this glide bait. Couldn't have done it without "youals"help. You just don't realize how often you pick up some little something that you will remember and be able to use at a later date. And pvc is a dream to work with, easier than wood. Musky Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might also try filling the hollowed out part with epoxy as that would add some weight to it without adding anything to the bait just makes it heavy.also might try making a mold out of it and pouring some out of hard plastic? it would hold up better to the toothie critters

Edited by crankpaint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why you really want to make it lighter? To make it noticeably less in weight I think would require like vodkaman said change the body material to something more buoyant. But then I would think you may not get the same action. I personally would love to have a 10oz lure. I could cast it way out there. You may not even need hooks on it, just a net to pick up the fish after it knocks itself out on the strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering why you really want to make it lighter? To make it noticeably less in weight I think would require like vodkaman said change the body material to something more buoyant. But then I would think you may not get the same action. I personally would love to have a 10oz lure. I could cast it way out there. You may not even need hooks on it, just a net to pick up the fish after it knocks itself out on the strike.

Now that's funny!

I tried to throw a 12" swimbait for a whole day, and was worn out after an hour. I had to pace myself to keep throwing it. I finally just threw it over big points and retrieved it slowly, and then threw a smaller swimbait to the sides of the point, and to other rocky stuff. Even so, I was using a big surf rod to throw the big bait, and it was work!

So I appreciate why he wants to make the bait lighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took my first lure to the lake this evening to give it a try and I am well pleased with the action. I am ready to paint it but first I will start on the second one and try to router out some of the top material. I am thinking that I might be able to leave the top of the lure open so water will drain when it is lifted from the water. That will make for a lighter lure on the cast, but am unsure what the action will be. I guess that is why we have trial and error. I plan to have sections so that I can maintain some regidity to the lure. I will probably leave 1/4 inch walls on the out side and leave thick areas for the hooks and front tie. Also thicker head and tail section.

The normal retrieve is just two foot pulls which cause it to walk the dog under water. I usually have about a two foot swing from side to side. It must sink to stay under water. I really don't have a clue what the hollowed out one will do. Any guesses? Musky Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took my first lure to the lake this evening to give it a try and I am well pleased with the action. I am ready to paint it but first I will start on the second one and try to router out some of the top material. I am thinking that I might be able to leave the top of the lure open so water will drain when it is lifted from the water. That will make for a lighter lure on the cast, but am unsure what the action will be. I guess that is why we have trial and error. I plan to have sections so that I can maintain some regidity to the lure. I will probably leave 1/4 inch walls on the out side and leave thick areas for the hooks and front tie. Also thicker head and tail section.

The normal retrieve is just two foot pulls which cause it to walk the dog under water. I usually have about a two foot swing from side to side. It must sink to stay under water. I really don't have a clue what the hollowed out one will do. Any guesses? This opens up some interesting ideas as far as hook hangers go. I made stainless still screws for the original. For the next one with the thinner walls and bottom I may use cotter pins for hook hangers and line tie since any water that gets around these won't hurt anything. Musky Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure Musky Glenn

I'll take a swing. Why not? I see a bait that wants to come to the surface and spin while walking a shorter distance on the twitch.

Littleriver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Musky Glenn

I reckon that these pouches on the back would generate some kinda vortices in the water slowing down the gliding performance of the bait , .....but we shall see , .....you'd surely report ;) !

good luck , ...Dieter :yay:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My local musky club helped with a handy capped kids fishing day at Lake Powhatan today so I didn't have a chance to work on the next lure. I will try to start on it tomorrow. I have, for the time being, scrapped the idea of routing out the center. Instead I am going to make a glued up version of the same thing. It will be easier to get the inside shapes that I think I need. I am going to start with two profile sides of 1/4 inch pvc. I will cut a center C shaped section with the opening in the C turned up. This will be the shape of the body that the two profile sides glue to. This will give me a basic canoe shape lure which I can glue in a couple of center dividers for strength. Parts of the top of the C section will get bored out to allow for water entry and exit. I will start out with it more closed and open it up with a battery powered drill at the lake where I can see results of drilling. Thanks for your input. Musky Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I missed the point in this thread, I was thinking that the volume of lead was the problem and not the weight was the problem. If you want to reduce the overall weight then changing materials is not going to help you. Definitely you will have to reduce the displacement to get a lighter lure. Trimming the sides was the most effective solution, but will it perform the same? Only testing will answer that.

DAve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right Vodkaman the problem was the total weight not the lead weight. I worded it wrong in the heading. Sorry for misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now