Target Coatings Submersion Test

[RayburnGuy]

A few days ago there was a discussion about the use of Target Coatings as a top coat. The first posts about it were favorable. After finding out Dick Nite's lure coat would not be available for a while I decided to try the EM 9300 waterborne polycarbonate urethane. After already placing my order there were several posts that this coating had failed a submersion test and that it would not be suitable for a lure coating. I decided to do my own test seeing that I'm only doing repaints on plastic lures and had already spent the money to purchase it. After coating the bait to be used for the test it was allowed to cure for a little over 72 hours. When applying the top coat special attention was given to the areas around the hook hangers thinking this could possibly be where a problem might start. The bait was then completely submerged in a bucket of water for 83 hours. About an hour ago I took the bait out of the water and could see no places where the coating had failed. Don't consider this an endorsement for this line of coatings as I have yet to see how it will hold up to being fished. I have no idea how, or if, it will withstand being banged into stumps, rocks and other underwater hazards. Hopefully there will be before and after pictures attached to this post if I can work the new software.

[jamie]

A few days ago there was a discussion about the use of Target Coatings as a top coat. The first posts about it were favorable. After finding out Dick Nite's lure coat would not be available for a while I decided to try the EM 9300 waterborne polycarbonate urethane. After already placing my order there were several posts that this coating had failed a submersion test and that it would not be suitable for a lure coating. I decided to do my own test seeing that I'm only doing repaints on plastic lures and had already spent the money to purchase it. After coating the bait to be used for the test it was allowed to cure for a little over 72 hours. When applying the top coat special attention was given to the areas around the hook hangers thinking this could possibly be where a problem might start. The bait was then completely submerged in a bucket of water for 83 hours. About an hour ago I took the bait out of the water and could see no places where the coating had failed. Don't consider this an endorsement for this line of coatings as I have yet to see how it will hold up to being fished. I have no idea how, or if, it will withstand being banged into stumps, rocks and other underwater hazards. Hopefully there will be before and after pictures attached to this post if I can work the new software.

Thanks for the info, I dont know much about this clear but any info is appreciated

[RayburnGuy]

No problem Jamie. That's why we're here. To help each other.

RG

[BobP]

Thanks. I have some 9300 and have been vacillating about trying it. So far, I've only used it for undercoating and it worked OK. I'm not sure about long submersion tests - seems to me that's not how baits are used. If the 9300 absorbs water and becomes softer during several hours of fishing, that would accelerate finish erosion and hook rash, and would be negative.

Guess I'm gonna have to break down and try it. Like anything, every builder has to try something for himself before he can say whether it fits his idea of "the right stuff".

[spoopa]

I have used the superclear 9000 an repaints for plastic lures and wooden lures. I seem to get a tougher coat with the wooden lures. With the plastic lures it doesnt seem to bond to well and after a hard days fishing the paint is already stripped off

I really have my worries about using this clear on lures that i sell to people and do repaints for just because of this reason. For my own use I think its a great clear because I hardly ever use the same lure for over a week and if i get a good lure that i like i can repaint it and put epoxy over it.

Some people have got good results with it but I still have mixed feeling about the superclear products.

Thanks, Jacob

[Husky]

Thanks. I have some 9300 and have been vacillating about trying it. So far, I've only used it for undercoating and it worked OK. I'm not sure about long submersion tests - seems to me that's not how baits are used. If the 9300 absorbs water and becomes softer during several hours of fishing, that would accelerate finish erosion and hook rash, and would be negative.

Guess I'm gonna have to break down and try it. Like anything, every builder has to try something for himself before he can say whether it fits his idea of "the right stuff".

Bob, I've never fished the same lure for several hours in a row unless it was getting hammered, which would skew the results. The key I found with the Target coatings is to keep them thin. They're made to be sprayed so dipping causes them to go on thicker than intended, For a lot of guys, that's worked out well, but I prefer to brush it on. It stays fluid enough to not have brush marks yet goes on thinner and dries harder, IMHO,

Sealing the baits well is very important with these coatings.

[RayburnGuy]

BobP I agree with you completely about the submersion test. Seems to me that all this proves is that the lure was sealed well enough to keep water from getting under the coating and spoiling the paint job. You could probably do the same thing with a thick coating of grease. I only did this because I had already paid for the product and it was being shipped when I read the posts about it failing the same type of test. It definitely feels softer than Dick Nite's as well as D2T. It feels to me to have about the same hardness as E-Tex. You can leave a dent in both of them with a fingernail although it does pop back out. IMO the jury is still out on whether it will hold up to the rigors of fishing. The best advice I can give on this product is that if you've already got some then give it a try.

RG

[RiverMan]

I have tried Target Coatings.........not nearly tough enough in my opinion for lures.Stick with etex, devcon, or DN.

Jed