# SUR 1567 takes a 26?



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

They've really made these blanks a lot bigger. Has anyone else built one of these yet? Looks like it's going to take a 26 for the seat to fit where I want it.


----------



## Ryan Y (Dec 1, 2005)

I thought it was a 24, if not, then they have really changed. Enjoy the show? I made it there today afterall.


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

Yeah, and that's 35" from the butt. It's just a hair under 26. Can't believe how much bigger and heavier these blanks are. 

The rod show was alright. Maybe I had higher expectations after hearing some of the deals folks got last year, but there wasn't much that was interesting to me. Picked up some thread, partial guide sets, some handle material, and a SUR1567 to try out. All in all it was neat to meet some of the folks there and see some of the people I read about.


----------



## Ryan Y (Dec 1, 2005)

Yup, not the same as in years past. They didnt have any guides I wanted/needed.


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

I think FS4U were the only folks with guides, and they didn't even have much of a selection. That really surprised me.


----------



## dawgfsh (Mar 1, 2005)

yup..got a couple of guides at the show, but will still have to order the tips I need.
And whats up with Rainshadow? they turned there 1264-1267's into heavers.


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

dawgfsh said:


> And whats up with Rainshadow? they turned there 1264-1267's into heavers.


That's what I'm saying! The old blanks were light, plenty powerful, and worked just fine for what they did. These new ones are heavy as hell compared to the old ones, and they've fattened up considerably. I didn't get a chance to talk to the Batson folks, but I wish I would have so I could get some sort of rationale for why they made those changes.


----------



## pipe (Nov 10, 2009)

Basstardo,did you ever build a rod with that SUR1567 blank?If you did,how do you like it?


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

Yep, it's built and ready to go. I'll have a better report for you after this weekend since it'll be the first time I really get to use it.


----------



## pipe (Nov 10, 2009)

Terry,if you could post your impressions of the rod,I would relly appreciate it.


----------



## dsurf (Aug 5, 2003)

basstardo said:


> Yeah, and that's 35" from the butt. It's just a hair under 26. Can't believe how much bigger and heavier these blanks are.
> 
> The rod show was alright. Maybe I had higher expectations after hearing some of the deals folks got last year, but there wasn't much that was interesting to me. Picked up some thread, partial guide sets, some handle material, and a SUR1567 to try out. All in all it was neat to meet some of the folks there and see some of the people I read about.



The SUR1567 is actually heavier than the SUR1569.....The official weight of the 1567 is 16.94 oz......and the 1569 is 14.65 oz, per Batson on their official equipment.


----------



## pipe (Nov 10, 2009)

I believe that at 16.94 ounces that is still very light in comparison to other medium duty heavers.I always kind of doubted the 14.65 ounces but was never able to get someone to actually weigh one.


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

I can tell you the built out rod feels much heavier than my SU1569's. The tip is huge compared to the old rods, which is where I think they gained a lot of weight.


----------



## pipe (Nov 10, 2009)

Damn,that doesn't sound too promising.


----------



## pipe (Nov 10, 2009)

Terry,did you get a chance to throw that 1567 this weekend?
Went Bass Pro in Auburn NY today to see what the Ocean Masters felt like and took my brother Tom with me.He bought,I diidn't.That's the last time I'm taking him anywhere.


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

Well, I like it. I know Nick from Breakaway didn't give the rod a very good rating when it came to the amount of weight it could throw, but I was bombing 8nbait with it. I think he rated it up to 6 or 7, but it had zero problem handling 8 oz, and I put some ass into a few times to see how much I could load it. I still like the old SU1569's WAY better, but this really isn't a bad rod. A bit on the heavy side compared to the SU1569's, but still light enough to hold all day. 

Overall, I'm happy with it, but the old blanks will still be my go-to rods.


----------



## pipe (Nov 10, 2009)

Having never had one of the old ones,I have no preconceptions.Because I'm getting it whether I like it or not,I'm determined to be happy with it.Thanks for your response.It doesn't sound totally awful.
I'll keep you posted.


----------



## SteveZ (Nov 30, 2006)

basstardo said:


> Nick from Breakaway didn't give the rod a very good rating when it came to the amount of weight it could throw, but I was bombing 8nbait with it.


Quote from Kerry Batson on a post over at RDT: 

"Attached is directly from Nick and has not been altered in any way. He did explained that his Max ratings were not tested with any heavier weight than 8 ounces and that our max rating listed in our Catalog if greater than his findings are fine and believes that the rods will not fail."

Perhaps if he had thrown heavier weights he might have arrived at different conclusions. I know that for me the new SUR1508 will throw 10 further than it does 8. So it doesn't surprise me that you could bomb 8+ with your new stick. My .02.


----------



## basstardo (Jun 5, 2006)

I saw that post elsewhere as well. I'm not sure if you saw the spreadsheet that Kerry sent out that had the ratings, but the 1567 was not rated for 8nbait. Hell, the 1569 wasn't either if I remember right. I will say the rod is fairly easy to load and with a Blue Yonder on it was casting good distances given the circumstances. I'll post up again once I get a chance to use it on the field for practice casting in a more controlled environment.


----------



## pipe (Nov 10, 2009)

That post of Kerry's is what led me to ask the question in the 1st place.It is in the Red Drum Tackle site.
Anyways,thank you for following up on my question and you knowledge of the rod.


----------



## Tacpayne (Dec 20, 2008)

pipe said:


> That post of Kerry's is what led me to ask the question in the 1st place.It is in the Red Drum Tackle site.
> Anyways,thank you for following up on my question and you knowledge of the rod.


Send me your email and I will send it to you.I was involved on the red drum tackle discussion that is being talked about, apparently I missed the boat, but still not sure. Im going to get a sur 1508 and build it to see what it will do for myself. Actually I will order it today. I trust Steve, as he is a more than capable builder, and caster.The blank may sit on my shelf for weeks or months, but I am going to get one just to see what it will do. I know that since I started distance casting and comparing rods that way, that when I pick up my heavers they dont feel near as "stiff" as they used to. Maybe that clouded my mind when I handled the blank, but I know that the su1509 is a stouter, stiffer feeling rod compared to the SUR1508, could just be different actions though.


----------



## SteveZ (Nov 30, 2006)

A pal who is a young, strong guy who knows how to cast and catches big fish has one of the new sur1569s that Nick rates to 8 oz. My pal sez it is a good stick and I am sure he would not say that if he couldn't throw more than 8 with it. He compares it to the old 1509 which I believe to be capable of 10+ but I do not personally know that as I have never thrown a 1509 in any of the various models. Anyway, I am absolutely sure the sur1569 is capable of way more than 8 oz!


----------



## SteveZ (Nov 30, 2006)

Tacpayne said:


> I know that the su1509 is a stouter, stiffer feeling rod compared to the SUR1508, could just be different actions though.


Undoubtedly true. Geez, the su1569 is a stouter, stiffer feeling rod than the sur1508. I have thrown 12+ with my su1569s but when I tried that weight with the 1508 it wanted to cave. Sooooo...methinks that for a caster like me the new 1508 is a superb fishin' stick for 10 and a head or chunk. And when I next go drummin' I'm gonna have three of 'em in the truck resting along side my favorite 1502s and the su1569s. Chuck, I have no idea if you'll like the sur1508 or not. But I think you'll be surprised how easy it loads up and how well it throws.

BTW the sur1508 takes a 24 seat.

At least all this keeps us from goin' completely nuts this time of year...


----------

