Most fly fishers come to two-handed rods through steelhead and salmon fishing, as a practical and enjoyable refinement toward collecting those fish from larger rivers. I’m probably fairly unique, because my entry into the world of double-handed rods came through the desire for a better trout rod to meet the demands of my home water, the upper Columbia River, where no fish from the sea have passed since 1939, when the construction of Grand Coulee Dam stopped the runs to the upper drainages. Nonetheless, it is big water holding big trout, and in the way of such rivers, it can be technical, but not the spring-creek kind of technical wherein one envisions going ever finer, lighter, and smaller.
Big rivers such as the upper Columbia or lower Sacramento present technical challenges that can be efficiently met by going big, and a two-handed trout rod can be the solution to covering those waters. Or a somewhat smaller river, for example, the Truckee, might be a good place to employ a two-handed rod, particularly when the water is up. The Truckee has a slippery, loose-cobbled bottom and can be awkward to wade. A two-hander allows for longer casts, hence less wading for position, and the longer rod holds more line off the water, affording more control and easier mending. With a two-hander, anybody who can execute a basic single Spey cast, or even a roll cast, will be far less hindered by lack of back-cast room. I can see the possibility of an angler taking command of the lower Truckee by employing a two-hander, swinging a pair of nymphs or a Muddler, covering the water more efficiently and with less effort than with a single-hander.
What Spey Rod for Trout?
There are a lot of kilt-wearing Scots in British Columbia, and they like the big rods. The Canadians fish for Columbia trout with heavy rods, up to 15 feet in length, using the big cannons to hurl large streamers an incredible distance, covering a lot of water from the bank and catching some impressive trout in the process. There is that. Still, I’ve tried it, and though they’re fun to cast, I find the big Spey rods overmatch most of the trout one is likely to encounter anywhere. Swinging a claymore where a cutlass would suffice does have a certain appeal, I admit, but hey, we’re trouting.
My first double-handed “trout rod” was a 12-foot 6-inch 5/6-weight Spey with a grain window of 350 to 550 grains, rated as a light steelhead rod, the lightest affordable and generally available 20 years ago. I learned to cast with it, and it was fun, yet it didn’t fulfill exactly what I had in mind as a two-handed trout rod. My home water and its trout dictated something a bit lighter, throwing a less invasive line weight.
Once I learned that Spey casts can be performed with a single-handed rod, I wondered if a shorter, lighter rod might benefit from the addition of a rear grip, so I guinea-pigged an old, fast-action 9-foot 6-weight. After removing the butt cap from the reel seat, I assembled a 3-inch rear grip on a 6-inch fitted section cut from an old blank, then epoxied and inserted it, ferruled into the rod butt. The result is a fun rod, no Spey cannon, but certainly better at performing Spey and roll casts than it was without the rear grip. It is a roll-casting machine rigged with a 7-weight double-taper line, a nice tool for high-stick nymphing, and good for pot-shooting cruising trout with emergers, due to its ability to fire a quick double-handed overhead cast a fair distance without wasting time false casting. The conversion works well on small to medium-sized streams, the size streams that many of us fish most of the time, places where we seldom cast farther than 40 feet and roll casting is the preferred mode. But keep in mind that 10-foot to 12-foot rods designed to handle two-handed casts, which generate considerable torque in the rod, will be better tools than your 9-foot 4-weight “Far and Fine” modified with a rear grip, if you plan on meeting larger rivers holding a larger grade of fish and throwing heavier flies.
It requires a heavier line to load a rod for Spey casts, and rods designed for the purpose will throw a variety of lines, while a converted single-handed rod will be more fragile, possessing a tighter grain window. A converted rod will perform best lined with the heaviest line it can possibly handle, but such rods do have strength limitations, so I would hesitate to go heavier than two line weights above the designation on the rod for fear of breaking it, and one or one and a half steps over the designated weight is a safer way to go for a conversion. The modified 6-weight with handy rear grip that I built proved to be a fun rod for fishing lakes and smaller streams, yet didn’t prove to be enough stick for meeting the larger rivers I like to fish. I found myself wanting a rod about 11 to 12 feet in length that might throw the equivalent of 6-weight to 9-weight AFTMA-rated lines, a grain window somewhere between 160 and 250 grains.
I’m currently using an 11-foot 3-inch rod that is manufacturer-rated for 6-weight (160-grain) AFTMA lines. It is sold as a “switch rod,” meaning that it can be operated in either single-handed or double-handed mode. Trials revealed that the manufacturer’s 6-weight designation is actually the lightest end of the rod’s grain window. After casting it with a variety of lines, I determined that the rod will handle 6-weight to 8-weight AFTMA lines most effectively, giving it a grain window of 160 to 210 grains. That covers the spectrum of things I want the rod to do, presenting and fishing small soft-hackles and double nymph rigs and swinging wet flies and streamers. While capable of handling an eight-pound trout, it doesn’t feel like too big a gun when fighting a 12-incher. It’s perfect for sea-run cutthroats, I’ve taken steelhead and pink salmon with it, and it’s all I use anymore for fishing barred surf perch in the California surf zone.
Lining a Double-Handed Trout Rod
The ideal length of line beyond the rod tip for performing any type of Spey or change-of-direction cast is roughly equal to three times the length of the rod — about 30 feet is the working length on rods appropriate for trouting. But 30 feet of trout line and 30 feet of Spey line are very different things, and they are rated by two different standards. The American Fishing Tackle Manufacturers Association (AFTMA) line ratings are what most trout anglers know. They are based on the grain weight of the first 30 feet of line. However, Spey line ratings, as reported by the American Fly Fishing Trade Association (AFFTA), are based on the weight of several working lengths of line beyond the rod tip, with each line designation available in several weights. There is a vast difference between the two. An AFTMA-rated 6-weight line weighs 160 grains over the first 30 feet, but a 6-weight AFFTA Spey-rated line can weigh 350 grains and more, depending on the working length beyond the rod tip, which may be somewhat more than 30 feet, and such a line might break a rod designed for a 6-weight AFTMA line.
Fortunately, an enlightened minority of rod makers print the grain window on the rod, which is most helpful, allowing us to choose from a spectrum of lines — and that is the future, I hope. Knowing the grain window of your rod will cut through the confusion and open the door to lining possibilities. When you think in grain weight, no matter what the label says, a line is a line is a line. Regarding trout rods, our only concerns are what purpose we have for the line and how much the first 30 feet weighs.
As of this writing, it is among the AFTMA-rated lines that we find the greatest variety suitable for trouting. Though there are now builders producing light 2/3-weight Spey-designated rods and lines designed with trout in mind, as of this writing, there are no official AFFTA weight designations for 1-weight, 2-weight, and 3-weight lines, the Spey weights falling into the grain window most suitable for trout rods. Generally, the longer the rod, the wider its grain window, and a rod built to withstand the rigors of Spey casting will handle a variety of lines fairly well, though it will have a sweet zone, and that will vary according to casting style. For perspective, I have a 10-foot 6-inch 2/3-weight, which casts 6-weight, 7-weight, and 9-weight AFTMA-rated lines and casts beautifully when set up with an 8-weight line.
For small to medium-sized streams, an integrated-head floating weight-forward line will perform fine on a two-hander. Lines selling as “triangle tapers,” configured similar to Scandi heads, with the weight distributed toward the back of the taper, are a good choice for a double-handed trout rod, and sinking leaders or sink tips of up to 10 feet can be looped to these as needed. There is at least one manufacturer offering double-taper lines with heads designed for Spey casting with either single-handed or double-handed trout rods.
In lining a light rod conversion meant for smaller streams, to my mind, you can’t go wrong with a double taper, which is configured like a long-belly Spey line. A DT presents well, and the fatter running line creates maximum drag on the water and weight in the D loop to load the rod, particularly in tight situations when casting with less than 30 feet of line beyond the rod tip. I offer the DT as my own preference, and that is not to say that any integrated weight-forward line of the proper weight won’t perform as well, yet I haven’t found a line configuration that roll casts better than a double taper — and you still get two lines in one.
A number of AFTMA-rated shooting-head systems that turn over a variety of interchangeable tips are now becoming available, designed to be cast with both switch and single-handed rods, similar to the Skagit or Scandi systems used on steelhead/salmon rods, and I would recommend one of this type for lining a bigwater trout rod. But, now, knowing the grain window of the rod, you can take it a step further and build your own system from a double-taper line, as I did for the 11-foot 3-inch switch rod mentioned earlier.
After trials with several line weights, I determined that the rod best performed single-handed overhead casts with a 6-weight line, double-handed overhead casts with a 7-weight line, and roll and Spey casts with an 8-weight line. I was still able to work the double-handed overhead cast fairly well using the 8-weight line, and since I intended the rod for double-handed casting, I went with the 8-weight as the primary line for building a system.
I purchased a good-quality double-taper 8-weight floating line and cut the first 30 feet from one end of it, which gave me a 210-grain floating head, so there was my basic floating line. From the other end of the DT, I cut off 5 feet of the front taper, then measured off 20 feet to create a “body” that carries a variety of 10-foot sink tips — I cut the 5 feet off the small diameter at the end of the taper to gain more body diameter for turning over the attached tips. The floating head rounds out the system, so there’s rarely a need to change the primary line body. I also cut 27 feet from an old 8-weight, weight-forward fast-sinking line to make a full-sinking head.
A scale that weighs in grains aids greatly in the process of making your own lines and heads. The investment is worth it and makes it possible to custom-build excellent lines at a fraction of the cost of factory lines. My reel is spooled with a good quality low-memory mono running line that slips through the guides with less resistance than an integrated line. The running line is rigged with a long loop at the end so a coiled head will pass through for an easy loop-to-loop connection, allowing quick line changes onstream without the need of a spare spool.
The Advantages — The Point, Really
A two-handed rod affords casting in tight places without the need to back cast, plus, it gives greater casting distances, quicker launches without the need to false cast when pot-shooting roving gangs of trout puddling on emergers, great line control with easy, more precise line mending at longer distances, and the ability to hold line off the water when short-line, high-stick nymphing and swinging flies. Also, it makes possible easy handling of large flies and awkward bobber setups. The long rod allows the use of longer leaders and is forgiving of light leaders in the precincts of fussy larger trout who might break them — a two-handed trout rod is a relaxing, graceful, pure fun tool for casting and swinging a streamer, a wet fly, or a pair of soft hackle nymphs on big water.
I met a guy who’d installed rear grips on all of his trout rods, and they are cute on the little 4-weights and 5-weights. No harm done. They’re nice roll casters, and one might have a good purpose for such rods. But I think for most, a double-handed trout rod might afford the most appreciable advantage as a rod to fill the big-water, big-fish niche while still possessing the capability for finesse — and that is a fairly narrow slice from the spectrum of double-hand rods available.
For most practical purposes, I would say it comes down to rods of 10 to 12 feet in length and possessing grain windows falling between 160 and 250 grains. Those criteria define a two-handed trout rod designed and built for the purpose. Rods rated for 6-weight to 8-weight AFTMA lines or 1/2/3 Spey lines will serve, for most of us, as trout rods — or maybe Spey-rated rods in 4-weights or 5-weights, if you plan on fishing the Kenai, though really, such a rod wouldn’t be overbearing on the lower Sacramento.
