Martinlf on Jun 24, 2015June 24th, 2015, 5:31 pm EDT
I haven't used this line in years, but it was OK when I was getting started. More expensive lines such as the Scientific Anglers textured lines will shoot farther, but for short range fishing, 333 should be fine.
"He spread them a yard and a half. 'And every one that got away is this big.'"
PaulRoberts on Jun 27, 2015June 27th, 2015, 2:39 pm EDT
An emphatic NO! Unless they've changed the formula in recent years the 333 "Classic" is too supple (read wimpy) to shoot line with and makes line handling a nightmare. I tried one in the mid 90's and it hung/draped like a wet noodle in the guides and hung up there continually. It's one thing to shake/wriggle line out the guides another when the line fights you tooth and nail by clinging to the guides. Unless they've stiffened them up some -added a slicker stiffer more rigid skin- I say an emphatic, NO!
PaulRoberts on Jun 29, 2015June 29th, 2015, 7:09 pm EDT
You know, after the mention of RIT dying fly-lines I wonder if I'd over-heated mine. Kind of doubt it, but it's a possibility. I know I hated that line. And, it was after 333 that the newer stiffer formulas appeared -truly an enormous advancement in fly-line technology.
MiltRPowell on Jun 29, 2015June 29th, 2015, 7:34 pm EDT
Never have any problem with 333. DT. I would not say it is a far shooting line. But for some small stream, & brook & more. Put it this way, they have sold miles of the classic line. I also like the 444, but there are loads of great products for sale today. Whatever you get, have fun fishing.... What one may like, another may hate, & so... On!!! Same with rods, try-them till you find the one that just fits you...