TackleTour

Getting in the Groove with Daiwa's T3 Ballistic



Introduction: Over the last 20 years, Daiwa has been a model of consistency offering competently engineered, well designed reels to the bass angling public. Yes they make more than bass fishing gear, but this is the market with which we are concerned today. Right or wrong, they've built a reputation for reels that are relatively light, small, and often expensive product. But every now and then, they slip a product in that's a little different, a little against the grain, innovative, and yes, eccentric.

Complete Article: http://tackletour.com/reviewdaiwat3ballistic.html

Most polarizing reel from ICAST 2011, soon to be the most polarizing review from TT ...

Great review, Cal. Glad to finally get some further insight into this reel. Now all that's left is to wait for everyone else to read it, and watch the show ....

Great review. "getting in the groove" is certainly one way of putting it

Great review. The handle was a huge disappointment to me to and I won't be putting braid on mine anytime soon after seeing that photo.

My monkey just yawned.

'Getting in the groove' lol, now that's funny!

About the issue on the front side of the reel frame:
In my opinion, this may be user related error.
What I picture from the photos is the user solving a bird nest by taking a lot of line out of the reel.
To reel the line tight, the user grabs the rod in front of the reel and hold the line between the index and thumb fingers.
This will cause the line to rub under tension and also would explain why the lower cut has a thinner section evolving to a cone pattern on the top. The fingers hold the line in place withe the level wind moved side to side opening the cut.

If the cut was due to the position of the guide that is two foot up in the rod, you would see not one but several cuts with a horizontal pattern and not vertically.

Also, this has been also discussed before in the forum.
A user complained about he same but he added that he didn't fish the reel, just put the line in.

PS: Do you know how I got to know all this? I just phone CSI.

Lets see what the long term says about this reel.

Finally:

Earlier this year, I gave the Abu Garcia MGX a pass because I was using it under conditions for which it was not intended. A lot of people did not agree with my assessment and interpreted the situation a lot more black and white. That's their prerogative. The T3 Ballistic doesn't get a pass.

I just wonder why some get a pass and discussion topic locked. For sure, PureFishing was less unhappy.
Again, in my opinion, no reel, brand or manufacturer should get a pass. This just corrupts the system of evaluation.

Carlos Carrapiço wrote:I just wonder why some get a pass and discussion topic locked. For sure, PureFishing was less unhappy.
Again, in my opinion, no reel, brand or manufacturer should get a pass. This just corrupts the system of evaluation.

From the article:

"Earlier this year, I gave the Abu Garcia MGX a pass because I was using it under conditions for which it was not intended. A lot of people did not agree with my assessment and interpreted the situation a lot more black and white. That's their prerogative. The T3 Ballistic doesn't get a pass.

I still like the concept behind this reel but Daiwa needs to address the grooving issue. Putting this reel up against peacock bass accelerated the wear and tear it would have seen under normal conditions, but I'm not convinced this will not happen under normal conditions because the line comes out of the reel in a very low a position. We are currently conducting more long term tests on the T3 and T3 Ballistic to further examine this."

Editorially speaking, I would have gone with Mind the Gap: Notch it up to Daiwa's T3 Ballistic

Anyway, on a brighter note, at least it won't corrode after a chunk like that gets taken out of it.

Great review as usual. I just hope Daiwa addresses the issues with the current T3's, I'm still looking forward to trying an updated model in the future

facelessnewsouth wrote:
Great review, Cal. Glad to finally get some further insight into this reel. Now all that's left is to wait for everyone else to read it, and watch the show ....

X2

... Goin get a Coke and popcorn ! be right back !

bigreddog wrote:Editorially speaking, I would have gone with Mind the Gap: Notch it up to Daiwa's T3 Ballistic

+1 for the surprise cosmopolitan cultural reference. Nice.

Carlos Carrapiço wrote:About the issue on the front side of the reel frame:
In my opinion, this may be user related error.
What I picture from the photos is the user solving a bird nest by taking a lot of line out of the reel.
To reel the line tight, the user grabs the rod in front of the reel and hold the line between the index and thumb fingers.
This will cause the line to rub under tension and also would explain why the lower cut has a thinner section evolving to a cone pattern on the top. The fingers hold the line in place withe the level wind moved side to side opening the cut.

If the cut was due to the position of the guide that is two foot up in the rod, you would see not one but several cuts with a horizontal pattern and not vertically.

Also, this has been also discussed before in the forum.
A user complained about he same but he added that he didn't fish the reel, just put the line in.

PS: Do you know how I got to know all this? I just phone CSI.

Lets see what the long term says about this reel.

Finally:

Earlier this year, I gave the Abu Garcia MGX a pass because I was using it under conditions for which it was not intended. A lot of people did not agree with my assessment and interpreted the situation a lot more black and white. That's their prerogative. The T3 Ballistic doesn't get a pass.

I just wonder why some get a pass and discussion topic locked. For sure, PureFishing was less unhappy.
Again, in my opinion, no reel, brand or manufacturer should get a pass. This just corrupts the system of evaluation.

I did post pics a while ago of my T3 with grooves in which I thought it was just my fault for being ‘off with the fairies’ while spooling BUT! The rod ive got mine on is spiral wrapped to… the thought did cross my mind about the problem being the an unhappy marriage between rod and reel but I dismissed it as I didn’t see evidence of the line touching the line under non-fishing retrieves.

Many people are questioned about the weight in difference of spool from the T3 and the T3 Ballisitc, but from what Cal reviewed, there is just a 3g difference.....

Cal wrote:

Carlos Carrapiço wrote:I just wonder why some get a pass and discussion topic locked. For sure, PureFishing was less unhappy.
Again, in my opinion, no reel, brand or manufacturer should get a pass. This just corrupts the system of evaluation.

From the article:

"Earlier this year, I gave the Abu Garcia MGX a pass because I was using it under conditions for which it was not intended. A lot of people did not agree with my assessment and interpreted the situation a lot more black and white. That's their prerogative. The T3 Ballistic doesn't get a pass.

I still like the concept behind this reel but Daiwa needs to address the grooving issue. Putting this reel up against peacock bass accelerated the wear and tear it would have seen under normal conditions, but I'm not convinced this will not happen under normal conditions because the line comes out of the reel in a very low a position. We are currently conducting more long term tests on the T3 and T3 Ballistic to further examine this."

I know that the MGX was sold as a finesse reel but it isn't more finesse than Steez 100.
A comparison of features and line capacity will reveal that:
The MGX is rated as 16lb/100m while the Steez 100 is rated as the same 16lb/100m
The MGX 7.1 retrieves 74 cm per handle turn while the Steez 100 SH retrieves 75 cm.
The MGX weights 154g while the Steez weights 160g
The MGX is rated to have 5.5 kg of drag vs the 4kg on the Steez.

source:http://www.purefishing.jp/products_2011 ... o_mgx.html
sourcehttp://all.daiwa21.com/fishing/item/ree ... index.html

More: The T3 is very similar to the Steez 100 and to the MGX and to the T3 ballistic.
Lets see (T3): 7.1 gear ration and 75cm per handle turn, 16lb-100m, weights 180g and its drag is rated at 5kg.

source:http://all.daiwa21.com/fishing/item/ree ... index.html

Can't really see any sign of more finesse in the MGX than in the Steez 100 or T3 so a comparison with the 103 would even reveal more the general purpose of the MGX.
More, the fact that you took it to Amazon only gives me reason.

But my problem was not with the T3 Ballistic not having a pass. My problem was with the MGX having it and I'm sure many people agree with me even if they are in the shade.