Which landing net handle?

[nottskev]

Look at finally swapping over to fibre glass landinf net handle from my old metal one as i cant seem to find a decent metal one. I did think about a 48inch bankstick but trying to keep stuff small and light

Ive seen the following.
The ngt 2m-3m tele or screw adjustments. 10-15 quidish or the middy power handle in 2.5m 15-20 quid ish.

I quite like middy as a brand i need the lenght as it helpful when fishing under bridges or moorings but every penny helps.
It will be just used for perch fishing no hopefull4t no carp or breamm will need to be lifted but maybe the odd jack if they take minniw

I cant validate the cost of drennan super specialist or ome of the korum ones that extend as there about 40 each

I've got one of the Drennan handles, worth having as I do have access to some good barbel fishing But my net handle for everything else is a Middy. I was so pleased with it that I replaced the one that drifted off down the river a few years ago with another the same, A Middy 4GS 2,5 m. It's a carbon one, not the model you mention, so a bit dearer, but a pleasure to use, being skinny, light and strong. I like the brand, too, and use a number ot their accessories, from pole elastic to micro sliding float attachments,

 

[nottskev]

I'm confused about the need for a 4m landing net pole,unless high banks,or weedbeds dictate,it seems match anglers today use these and then struggle to chase fish to net them,especially in a wind,i've always found that four to 9ft or so is best,the shorter the better if possible,so I like adjustable length poles....

A 4m landing net handle is longer than a 13' (3,9m) rod. I think they're popular and fashionable among commercial specialists. It can't be to reach over marginal weed - the banks are normally like a swimming pool - so I guess it's for trying to shorten playing time by scooping at carp - a bit like spear-fishing, and some blokes are very good at it - as they first come to the surface. If you've only got a few hours to catch 200lb, I can see the sense of it, but it's not for me. It does however, allow anglers to spend more than ever on a handle. There was a joke in post-Soviet Russia
A. How much did you pay for your watch?
B $200
A You're crazy. I know where you can get one for $300

 

[tigger]

For anyone looking for a compact, strong and lightweight landing net staff I would recommend they take a look at the korum opportunist telescopic handle. I find them to be brilliant little handles, I can't remember how short they pack down to but it is very short maybe a couple of foot. When extended they are nice and solid, not very bendy at all.
I think they are about 2mtrs extended without the added length of the net head. For me this is adequate in the majority of situations. I wish they had been available years ago!

 

[Keith M]

I like a net handle to have a short removable tip section (around a foot long) which I can unship and safely carry the fish to an unhooking mat without the net handle getting in the way.

My current one (see pic) is made by Drennan but there are a few others around.


Keith

 

[markcw]

I like a net handle to have a short removable tip section (around a foot long) which I can unship and safely carry the fish to an unhooking mat without the net handle getting in the way.

Keith

I have an original Daiwa Tournament courtesy of @mikench that has that facility, also a 5 metre middy carp handle with it.
These are back up handles, My main go to handles are the Acolyte, due to versatility and lightness and a 3 metre Team Daiwa again for lightness.

 

[tigger]

I like a net handle to have a short removable tip section (around a foot long) which I can unship and safely carry the fish to an unhooking mat without the net handle getting in the way.

Keith

Keith, the korum one just slides back into itself and leaves in in its compact size, seriously good nandles and cost me around 23 ripps delivered.

 

[Golden Eagle]

Series 7 Ex-Strong Carp Match 3.3m | Drennan International

Best multi piece handle I’ve ever had. Two sections threaded, 3 lengths 1.1, 2.2, 3.3m. I used it at 2.2m with top 2 when fishing matches and at 2.2m with bottom 2 for carp, barbel and other heavier fish.

I notice that there is now a new tier of models above Acolyte called Vertex.

The Drennan vertex range replaces Series 7. It’s a tier below Acolyte which remains their flagship range.

 

[Golden Eagle]

In the OP’s budget range, I think the Middy is as likely to be as good as any.

I have a Tri-cast with the short netting facility described above, a silstar and a MAP Dual.

The MAP is thicker than the other 2 but I’ve found myself preferring it over the thinner, more lightweight and more expensive tri-cast recently.

I picked up the Silstar cheap and it’s great as a back up, Think I paid about £15 for it, tremendous value if you can find one.

 

[S-Kippy]

I'm a tart ( generally) and particularly for LN handles. I have 2 of the Drennan SS twist lock handles ( ordinary and compact) and they're good albeit a bit heavy. Last year I got a couple of Kodex handles and they are very impressive....a one piece which was as cheap as chips and a 2 piece carbon take apart which is lovely and light. The one I use most is a Korum carbon thing ( one piece again) which is as light as a feather but as strong as you like.....its had some hammer and so far seems bulletproof. I had a telescopic Middy one too but it crumbled to dust after about 5 outings. Very light and very cheap...but poor quality. I have a Drennan Red Range tele knocking about somewhere but it rarely gets an outing. Dunno why because its not bad.

I have no need for anything over 6ft long so cant comment on these 4m jobs.

 

[sam vimes]

I'm confused about the need for a 4m landing net pole,unless high banks,or weedbeds dictate,it seems match anglers today use these and then struggle to chase fish to net them,especially in a wind,i've always found that four to 9ft or so is best,the shorter the better if possible,so I like adjustable length poles....

If you use long rods (especially when fishing deep water) or poles/whips in deep water, or to hand, you are likely to need a longer landing net pole. If you don't do such things, the only time longer than 3m might be required is if you fish a venue with badly weeded margins or a swim with a long drop to the water.

I have zero interest in modern match style netting techniques. Chasing fish with a net may be fashionable, but it's an anathema to me. It goes against everything I ever learned. It may well work, but it's not for me. However, I fish for enjoyment (particularly of the fight), I don't want or need to get every fish I hook in the shortest time humanly possibly.

I do have a 4.5m landing net pole. However, it's rarely used. I have it because I occasionally fish scenarios where it's necessary. The reality is that, more often than not, a 3m landing net handle is as long as most require. For many people, a 4m handle that can be used in shorter configurations is probably the ideal to negate the need for owning/carrying multiple options. If Drennan made a 4m version of their Super Specialist Twistlock, I'd be using one of those for pretty much every fishing scenario. As it stands, I tend to use the 3m version for just about everything but need a longer option in some situations. I suspect that the average commie angler, generally using 10' rods, and long poles, in relatively shallow water, might not need a handle much longer than 2-2.5m. It's simply a matter of "horses for courses".

 

[sam vimes]

A possible option for the OP? https://www.total-fishing-tackle.com/frenzee-fxt-match-4m-net-handle

 

[rob48]

I'm confused about the need for a 4m landing net pole,unless high banks,or weedbeds dictate,it seems match anglers today use these and then struggle to chase fish to net them,especially in a wind,i've always found that four to 9ft or so is best,the shorter the better if possible,so I like adjustable length poles....

I can endorse SV's points above about the longer handle making netting fish when using longer or bolo rods a smoother and more efficient operation. I find the 4m handle ideal for this and it's also easier to use with "normal" 12 or 13' rods as it can be held part way along, so that the bottom end acts as a counter-balance so reducing the feel of the weight of it.
Another advantage is that it offers the option to net fish further out in the river. This is useful, especially on the Trent which seems to be full of jacks at the moment. They habitually position themselves in the side, within striking range of the spot where fish are being lifted from the water to swing to hand. The ability to net fish further away from the bank reduces the chances of the pike attacking them.
The other thing about a 4m landing net handle is the same as for a 16m pole, you don't have to use it at full length all the time.

 

[RMNDIL]

I'm confused about the need for a 4m landing net pole,unless high banks,or weedbeds dictate,it seems match anglers today use these and then struggle to chase fish to net them,especially in a wind,i've always found that four to 9ft or so is best,the shorter the better if possible,so I like adjustable length poles....

I would struggle MASSIVELY if I was restricted to just 2m or so of landing net handle. 4m every time. So what if 1/2m or 1m or even 1.5m is still behind me when I 'pan' a fish. You don't use them at 4m all of the time on every fish. Advantages, for me, far outweigh any possible disadvantages.

 

[108831]

Possibly,but I use poles such as the super specialist 3m,but very rarely do I use it as such,why would you find it awkward netting with 2m,because the net on top is another 18" or more, even on the pole I find it easier with shorter lengths if the banks or weed allows,I own five adjustable net poles,most 4m poles bend when decent fish are netted(6lbs plus),I like the pole to be as rigid as it can,it seems to have become fashionable in match fishing and slowly spread to other parts of the sport,just to add in my match fishing days we weren't trying to catch 300lbs of crap(carp) in five hours so it wasn't speed fishing for lumps so saving seconds didn't equate to twenty pounds more at the finish....

 

[nottskev]

I don't think lack of a 4m net pole has in any way prevented me from landing plenty of fish of every species from all kinds of waters. The net pole length has been irrelevant to any I've failed to land. Nor did the non-existence of net poles longer than standard float rods (3.9m) seem to limit anglers of the past. One of the great unanswered questions of our time, after how to cope with global warming, population migrations and the rise of artificial intelligence, is why do they keep telling us 9' or 10' rods make carp surface nearer the bank but we need a 13' net pole to net them? It couldn't be just to sell us more kit we don't need, surely? I'd file the 4m net pole next to the carbon fibre seat box, the £500 feeder rod and the Preston Innovations Pellet Strainer.

 

[108831]

If an angler finds it works for him/her then ok,whatever rocks your boat,for me it isn't needed,in fact it's a hinderance in many swims imv.

 

[RMNDIL]

I couldn't fish with just a 2m handle in probably 90% of places/swims I fish. As you say bank height and weed are a big problem and the Thames has plenty of those. But add to that 4.5m of pole kit + line (and in winter longer lengths) and the fish come up too far out for any short handle. Roach perch, chub, bream, tench. It doesn't matter. Handle is plenty stiff enough (Acolyte). If I fish with a shorter kit - 3.0m or rod & line (mostly 13ft rod, sometimes 15ft) - then I still always set up a 4m handle. Fish, bream often, can and do surface out of reach especially in flow. When I net a fish sometimes I might be holding the butt section half way along or at the top of it etc but it doesn't matter where I hold it I only slide out enough (never pick it all up from the side, the net head is always by my knees on top of keepnet or across side tray) to get where I want. With a 4m handle I can do everything. With 2m or so I can only do some things and not many.

Only exception is narrow canals (Oxford, K&A, GU) as the pole kit is very short (maybe only 1.4m) and so fish come up very close. 2m is plenty. Plus you don't want longer as it sticks out behind you and gets in the way of all of the other people using the towpath.

 

[sam vimes]

I'm beginning to understand how so many folks break pole top kits, and rod tip sections, when playing fish.

I would struggle MASSIVELY if I was restricted to just 2m or so of landing net handle. 4m every time. So what if 1/2m or 1m or even 1.5m is still behind me when I 'pan' a fish. You don't use them at 4m all of the time on every fish. Advantages, for me, far outweigh any possible disadvantages.

I believe that some are missing the important point that you don't have to net at full length. It's also true that most modern 4m net handles can also be used at shorter lengths. That can be achieved by leaving a rear section off or having a threaded second section and leaving the top section off. A good 4m landing net handle gives you options. The 4m Drennan Acolyte can be used at 4m, 2.8m and 2.6m. Most 2-2.5m landing net poles offer nothing if you fish deeper venues, high banks or long rods. I only bother with short handles if I'm fishing a stillwater that's no more than five feet deep using short (11' or less) rods.

Like a few here, I tend to use the Super Specialist Twist Lock handles for pretty much everything. They are slim, strong, rigid and lighter than anything similar. They are also very versatile, I'll use them whether I'm trotting a river, full on carping and everything in between. However, I'd give my eye teeth for a longer version. I reckon one that was 1.95m closed would be about 3.8m extended. That would do me fine and it would be the perfect length to marry up with the Drennan Specialist double rod sleeve/hardcase I tend to use.

 

[RMNDIL]

Like a few here, I tend to use the Super Specialist Twist Lock handles for pretty much everything. They are slim, strong, rigid and lighter than anything similar. They are also very versatile, I'll use them whether I'm trotting a river, full on carping and everything in between. However, I'd give my eye teeth for a longer version. I reckon one that was 1.95m closed would be about 3.8m extended. That would do me fine and it would be the perfect length to marry up with the Drennan Specialist double rod sleeve/hardcase I tend to use.

Agree. 1.95m would just fit in many holdalls (could be in a side pocket with a bit sticking out anyway). I designed one a couple of years or so ago but the project never got off the ground. But the shorter version did. At the longer length it would be softer unless it was made in a bigger diameter with different sized locking cam. But then it'd be heavier and also more expensive. You could up the carbon grade but that increases price again. All depends on what people are willing to spend.

 

[sam vimes]

Agree. 1.95m would just fit in many holdalls (could be in a side pocket with a bit sticking out anyway). I designed one a couple of years or so ago but the project never got off the ground. But the shorter version did. At the longer length it would be softer unless it was made in a bigger diameter with different sized locking cam. But then it'd be heavier and also more expensive. You could up the carbon grade but that increases price again. All depends on what people are willing to spend.

I'd cope with a greater diameter, provided it didn't end up looking like the supposed competition from Gardner. There's no getting away from the inevitable reality that it would be heavier and more expensive. However, I'd have few qualms about paying. I'd also have been happy paying a bit extra for the 3m version to retain the cross taped inner section of the original version.

For me, the reality is that a 4m+ match type alternative is likely to cost in excess of £100. I'd much prefer a Super Specialist even if it cost that much and more. Sign me up for the first one produced, or a prototype if needs must!