Screw Eyes

[Toadman]

Very well put, you were well on your way to convincing me, now you have.  Thanks and may you and I be recipients of those "Once in a Lifetime Moments" this coming year!

Also, for whatever it's worth, I have a friend and fellow lure maker who also makes Muskie Baits.  He uses what I thought to be an interesting approach by using stainless steel cotter pins.  He drills a hole through the entire bait (top to bottom) and inserts the pin, making a channel on top for the "legs" to be bent into, and fills in with wood filler and goes on.  Of course, that still leaves the front/rear hook hangers where he is using "screw-in" eyes.  He is an avid Muskie Fisherman and has caught many, many big fish without any issues.  

I believe what we are all saying here is that no matter which system we use for "certainty", the system is only as good as all of the parts combined.  The Engineered Anglers approach to these tests say as much.  Given the Person, Reel, Rod, Line, Leader, Hook Eye, Swivel, Split-Rings, Hooks & Fish, it seems likely that at least (1) of these will eventually fail.  Of course none of us want that failure to be because of something we did, however likely it seems that it will do so.  This probably points more towards checking the entire system more often then what we do.  How often do we scrupulously check all of these factors within our systems?  More often than not, we just grab another lure, put it on our line and get back to casting for the "Big One". 

Keep on Fishing for those elusive "Big Ones" and of course remember the old saying of "The Big One that got away"!

[exx1976]

8 minutes ago, Toadman said:

Very well put, you were well on your way to convincing me, now you have.  Thanks and may you and I be recipients of those "Once in a Lifetime Moments" this coming year!

Also, for whatever it's worth, I have a friend and fellow lure maker who also makes Muskie Baits.  He uses what I thought to be an interesting approach by using stainless steel cotter pins.  He drills a hole through the entire bait (top to bottom) and inserts the pin, making a channel on top for the "legs" to be bent into, and fills in with wood filler and goes on.  Of course, that still leaves the front/rear hook hangers where he is using "screw-in" eyes.  He is an avid Muskie Fisherman and has caught many, many big fish without any issues.  

I believe what we are all saying here is that no matter which system we use for "certainty", the system is only as good as all of the parts combined.  The Engineered Anglers approach to these tests say as much.  Given the Person, Reel, Rod, Line, Leader, Hook Eye, Swivel, Split-Rings, Hooks & Fish, it seems likely that at least (1) of these will eventually fail.  Of course none of us want that failure to be because of something we did, however likely it seems that it will do so.  This probably points more towards checking the entire system more often then what we do.  How often do we scrupulously check all of these factors within our systems?  More often than not, we just grab another lure, put it on our line and get back to casting for the "Big One". 

Keep on Fishing for those elusive "Big Ones" and of course remember the old saying of "The Big One that got away"!

The old wooden Suicks used to use a through-cotter pin design.  Not sure if they still do or not, haven't bought any in years.  Always seemed a pretty solid setup to me, at least for the hook hangers.  I suppose I never have tested them, a la the Engineered Angler's tests, but..  LOL

[Toadman]

Yes, I have (3) of these in my Lakeland Box and they still use the same technique.  It would only fail if the entire lure self destructed from the inside/out.  Added bonus, they are ugly, but catch fish!

 

[eastman03]

I've watched all of the Engineered anglers series on youtube, really good content.  I like how he breaks it down and tests certain aspects like that.    The lures that broke on me were bought lures.  One was a very expensive 'high quality' lure, that was only about two years old, minimal use.    Two other ones (like in the picture that i posted), were both suicks,  probably my favorite musky lure of all time (i believe i have 5 in my tackle box, and another 12 on my 'retired lure' wall haha).   

I agree with you guys on everything.  superglue screw eyes<epoxy screw eyes<epoxy screw eyes at an angle (like Engineered angler suggests)<dowels, with epoxy screw eyes, or a pinned system<  Thru wire

Again, you change line, get new rods, change hooks, split rings, all the other things that are replaceable to make sure they are in tip top shape, replacing a lure isn't always an option.  When I bass, walleye, or even pike fish or pay 10$ for a lure, it makes sense that the lure will be made "strong enough" as it is more cost and time effective.   But, a 100$ custom high quality 12" crank bait with screw in eyes.  I mean it isn't even a question in my mind.  All these methods have their merits, and new (like new fishing line, or rods) will be strong enough to handle.  I also agree, i have used lures (like the suicks pictured) past their replacement date!  No doubt about that. But I have been burned (as well as a few other musky anglers that i've talked to) by a big screw eye, in a expensive well made lure that wasn't that old.   It isn't about one static test.  It is about multiple uses, in water warm and freezing, from plus 30 to minus 10 (Celsius, I'm Canadian), getting banged off rocks, pulled through weeds, jerked/twisted/pulled snagged 1000 times and still bagging the 40 pounder when I need it to.   

 

Another thing specifically with large musky crankbaits is the thrashing they take when a fish goes in the net.  Anyone who has bagged a big musky knows they sometimes thrash like crazy.  I have had screw eyes turn 90 degrees from their epoxied point.  I have also had thru wire bent sideways (often on the pulling eye).  This can start to be a failure point in either of the lure, and it is something to be careful and watch out for.  Often with crankbaits you have to tweak the pulling eye to get the crankbait to run true, and i really hate doing this with a 0.92 screw eye.  Occasionally when you do this you 'crack' the glue going, basically leaving the pulling eye holding by friction alone.  

 

[mark poulson]

I have never even seen a musky, except in pictures, so this is just a question based on my building and fishing lures for largemouth bass and stripers.

I use an 80# rated swivel for my belly hook hanger, set in super glue with a piece of spinnerbait wire passed through the buried eye that runs side to side, just for insurance. because, if I get careless, and allow the super glue to enter the barrel of the swivel, the wire will fail before the swivel body can be pulled out with a pair of pliers.

I like the swivel belly hanger because it seems to keep the fish from using the weight of the lure to lever out the hook.  It provides enough freedom to allow the lure to swing around and embed the tail hook into the side of the fish, which really cuts down on their thrashing and fighting.

For you guys who build musky lures, do you think that method might work for you?

[exx1976]

5 minutes ago, mark poulson said:

I have never even seen a musky, except in pictures, so this is just a question based on my building and fishing lures for largemouth bass and stripers.

I use an 80# rated swivel for my belly hook hanger, set in super glue with a piece of spinnerbait wire passed through the buried eye that runs side to side, just for insurance. because, if I get careless, and allow the super glue to enter the barrel of the swivel, the wire will fail before the swivel body can be pulled out with a pair of pliers.

I like the swivel belly hanger because it seems to keep the fish from using the weight of the lure to lever out the hook.  It provides enough freedom to allow the lure to swing around and embed the tail hook into the side of the fish, which really cuts down on their thrashing and fighting.

For you guys who build musky lures, do you think that method might work for you?

As a musky fisherman, I do not want my lures embedded in the side of the fish. That's horrible. 

[mark poulson]

2 minutes ago, exx1976 said:

As a musky fisherman, I do not want my lures embedded in the side of the fish. That's horrible. 

The embedment happens right behind the gill plate, so it isn't as bad as it sounds.  From the pictures I've seen, a musky's jaw is so long that the tail hook on one of my 6" baits would never pass the jaw, anyway, and, now that I think about it, would probably never embed in that hard jaw material.

It was just an idea to try and reduce the torque on the belly hook hanger.  It is pretty common on quality swimbaits made for bass and stripers here in CA.

[Vodkaman]

My latest design only uses 15mm barrel twist eyes, but the hole has an internal step to prevent pulling out.

Dave

[exx1976]

Depending on what that's made of, that design could prove quite the challenge to produce. 

[Vodkaman]

Exx1976 - it will be molded halves, so no problem at all

Dave

[mark poulson]

10 hours ago, Vodkaman said:

Exx1976 - it will be molded halves, so no problem at all

Dave

What material will it be made with?

[Vodkaman]

The first few will be 3D printed PVA to fine tune the lip. After that it will be polyester resin until I can find a more suitable resin. It is no where near ready yet, even though it looks complete.

Let's not get side tracked here. I just wanted to show what was possible with the short screw eye.

Dave

[mark poulson]

I was asking because I wondered if the material would affect the strength of the fastening.

[Vodkaman]

34 minutes ago, mark poulson said:

I was asking because I wondered if the material would affect the strength of the fastening.

Valid point.

Screw eyes generally fail because of shear strength, the glue contact with the wood fails and the screw and glue rips out, often because of water ingress.

The internal step eliminates this kind of failure. For this assembly to fail, the lure material would have to fail completely. I meant to say PLA (not PVA). Another common material is PETG. Although these materials are not used in bridge design, I am confident that they would fare better than most woods. We all know about polycarbonate which would be an ideal choice, and is commonly available.

Dave

[Big Epp]

On 12/9/2020 at 3:50 PM, bigblue2 said:

how about using jb weld steel reinforced epoxy will  that hold for lighter lure blanks?      

I'm going to try and use some of this to reinforce the neck on a mouse lure I'm working on.  It's a little thinner than I'd like, so I'm hoping the steel reinforced epoxy will strengthen it up.  I used a through-wire for the mouse, but I'll use the epoxy to fill remaining holes and keep everything together.  Reading the warnings and fine print it looks like that stuff is pretty caustic.  I've never used it before, but am a bit hesitant.

[Vodkaman]

5 hours ago, Big Epp said:

Reading the warnings and fine print it looks like that stuff is pretty caustic.  I've never used it before, but am a bit hesitant.

Shouldn't be a problem as you NEVER let ANY resin product touch your skin. If you can smell it then you need ventilation, mix it outside or use a fan.

Dave

[Travis]

18 hours ago, Big Epp said:

I'm going to try and use some of this to reinforce the neck on a mouse lure I'm working on.  It's a little thinner than I'd like, so I'm hoping the steel reinforced epoxy will strengthen it up.  I used a through-wire for the mouse, but I'll use the epoxy to fill remaining holes and keep everything together.  Reading the warnings and fine print it looks like that stuff is pretty caustic.  I've never used it before, but am a bit hesitant.

JB Weld?   Maybe a few farmers and backyard mechanics that would not share your concern.     I had one Grandfather that claimed that it made his pants  last a few years longer as it held all the fibers together.

 

[Big Epp]

Alright, alright, so sometimes I'm afraid of what I'm not familiar with... Thanks for all the reassurance, now I can turn off the nightlight 

[Vodkaman]

Big Epp - We are here for those questions and concerns, this is the whole point of the TU site.

Dave

[Travis]

43 minutes ago, Big Epp said:

Alright, alright, so sometimes I'm afraid of what I'm not familiar with... Thanks for all the reassurance, now I can turn off the nightlight 

Better safe than sorry.    I never have known anyone to have any issues with it in regards to reactions and essentially is like using Devcon or similar product.  I would imagine for most of us inactivity and diet choices are far more detrimental to our health.

To be honest for what you are wanting to do imagine thinning some Devcon and brushing it on the area would be all that is needed.  

Edited January 3, 2021 by Travis