Aqua Talon Chironomid Hook Review
A Comparison to the Venerable Daiichi 1760

Aqua Talon Chironomid Hook Review | Introduction:

It doesn’t happen often, but once in a while a new fly fishing product comes along that tweaks my interest. In this case it was the social media buzz around the new Aqua Talon 5750 Chironomid hook. But even then, new hooks come and go and typically don’t grab my attention quite the way this one did. After a bit of reflection I realized that it wasn’t “just” the new hook that had my wheels spinning, but more so the fact that it was being compared to the Daiichi 1760 … the 2X hook that has proven itself over and over as the current top (in our books anyway) curve nymph style chironomid hook! So you can imagine when I started to hear claims of the ATC being “just like the 1760 but with a bigger gap”, that it would be sleepless nights until I dug into it!

This review is a comparison of the Aqua Talon Chironomid hook to the Daiichi 1760. My initial thought was that it’s going to be tough slugging for the Talon, but champions have been toppled before so I was super eager to see how the ATC would fare against what I consider to be today’s top dog!

Aqua Talon Chironomid Hook Review | Tale of the Tape:

The first thing that I wanted to compare was the size and shape of the hook. This is where I hit my first conundrum! From what I was hearing I had assumed that the ATC was going to be the same length as the Daiichi 1760 but with a slightly bigger gap. What I discovered was that along with the ATC’s bigger gap, it also had a longer shank. So with my OCD now in full gear I decided to reach out to one of the designers to see if my samples were incorrectly labeled. The answer; no, they are correctly labeled and longer on purpose as the intention was to have more shank exposed to protect the fly body from premature wear from fish teeth.

With that satisfying my concern, the measuring began. This quickly resulted in  conundrum number two; accurately measuring small curvy objects!

Suffice to say I spent WAY too much time on this step! I used two different rulers and two different micrometers and my numbers never exactly matched those that were provided to me by the designer. But the measurements are close and I don’t believe that any minor discrepancies effect conclusions one way or the other. I think you will agree as we go through the data …

For the first round of measuring I simply laid the hooks on a ruler and estimated an approximate 2/16″ difference in both the Daiichi 1760’s and ATC’s between each of their respective sizes. Specifically, from #16 through #10 the 1760’s measured 7/16″, 9/16″, 11/16″ and 13/16″ while the ATC’s from #16 to #12 measured 8/16″, 10/16″ and 12/16″.  So, the ATC’s fit in about a half size (1/16″) bigger than the Daiichi 1760 in each labeled size comparison; and therefore about a half size smaller (1/16″) when compared to the Daiichi 1760 one size up.

Squaring them up along the ruler and placing them side by side showed the half(ish) size progression quite nicely (see photo above). It also illustrated that the gaps were a much closer match when the ATC was compared to a one size up 1760 as opposed to it’s labeled size counterpart (see photo below).

Matching them up with hook bends squared (photo below) further illustrated the half(ish) size/length differences as well as the similar gap between the ATC and a one size up D1760 …

So, given that …

1. there is about the same length difference between the two brands regardless if you compare them labeled size to labeled size or labeled ATC size to one size up 1760 and
2. the labeled size ATC to one size up 1760 match up allows for a much closer gap size comparison (which is how most hooks are sized)

… it therefore seems logical to continue the review by comparing the ATC labeled size to the Daiichi of one size up as there are more similarities this way than the other once gap is taken into account.

If it was up to me (which it obviously is not) the ATC #16, #14 & #12 would have been much more accurately described labeled as #14, #12 & #10 (all in a 1.5X shaft length).  This would have represented what the physical data shows; both brand of hooks in the same labeled size with the same size gap with a shank length difference of about .5X.  Oh well, a rose by any other name …

Now I know what you’re thinking. There’s a lot of “close” and “about” being thrown around. As acknowledged up front the measuring was tough, and I don’t think the slight differences matter in the end, but to be a bit more precise I took an even closer look.

From the image above I think it’s fair to conclude that …

1. The difference between the ATC #16 and the D1760 #16  is very close to the same as the difference between the ATC #16 and the D1760 #14
2. The difference between the ATC #14 and the D1760 #14 is less than the difference between the ATC #14 and the D1760 #12
3. The difference between the ATC #12 and the D1760 #12 is greater than the difference between the ATC #12 and the D1760 #10

So what does all of this mean with respect to chironomid patterns? Or, more relevant to this review, what does it mean when comparing the ATC to the Daiichi 1760 with respect to chironomid patterns? The answer to that depends on whether or not the slight difference in shaft length makes a difference to the out come of the fly.

If you can’t tie a fly of the same size/proportion on a one size up D1760 then the ATC will have a bigger gap while providing a bit longer hook shank to “protect” the fly from the teeth of fish. But, if you can tie a fly of the same size/proportion on a one size up D1760 then then the ATC loses any advantage that it was trying to gain in both hook gap and “protective” shaft length. The answer is yes, you definitely can tie a fly of the same size/proportion on a one size up D1760 resulting in both the larger gap and extended protective shank initially desired by the ATC designers.

Since that’s probably clear as mud here’s an image of a same length fly body chironomid tied on both the ATC #14 and the D1760 #12 …

If you recall from the numbers/images above, the ATC#14/D1760#12 match up has the greatest shank length difference. So if the objectives can be accomplished within these two hook size match ups, then it certainly can be accomplished (even easier actually) with ATC#16/D1760#14 and the ATC#12/D1760#10 hook size match ups.

Butttttttt wait there’s more! We still haven’t talked about hook wire gauge. I found this measurement to be the easiest and I took it with a micrometer at the narrowest point that I could find on the bend of each hook. Results were as follows (*again to the best of my ability) …

ATC #16: .022″     D1760 #16: .022″
ATC #14: .024″     D1760 #14: .024″
ATC #12: .026″     D1760 #12: .026:
D1760 #10: .028″

ATC gauge seems to be equal, per labeled size, to that of the Daiichi 1760. Without strength testing, but assuming that wire gauge is a good indicator of such, this is good news for the ATC.

The bad news for the ATC is that when compared to the better matched one size up Daiichi 1760, it has a lighter gauge by approx. .002″ at each size. Whether or not this will result in any discernable differences during strength testing is hard to say, but it is notable.

Aqua Talon Chironomid Hook Review | The Silver Lining

Before getting to the conclusion just a few words on the “silver” option. I did all of my testing on the Daiichi 1760 assuming that both the Alec Jackson Crystal Covert (Silver) and Phantom (Black) hooks were  identical in size/shape/profile. After finally obtaining a few of each I can confirm that they are the same size/shape/profile. The only discrepancy, for reasons beyond my understanding, is that they too are size labeled a bit differently …. ie 1760 #16, #14, #12  = AJ #15, #13, #11. But again, and like with the Aqua Talon, a rose by any other name …

I can’t speak for any strength differences that may exist between the Daiichi 1760 and the Alec Jacksons, but as mentioned earlier in the review until such time as we can do some  measurable testing I’ll assume that hook gauge is a good indicator, and can confirm that hook gauge is the same between the D1760 & AJs at each sizing.

So if you’re looking for a silver hook to match up against the ATC nickel plated hook you can use the AJ’s interchangeably one size up just as you could the Daiichi 1760.

Aqua Talon Chironomid Hook Review | Price:

At the time of this review a quick google search showed the following …

AQ Talon Chironomid: $12.00 per 25 ($0.48 each) | 42.00 per 100 ($0.42 each)
* flymart

Daiichi 1760: $10.01 per 25  ($0.40 each) | $34.06 per 100 ($0.34 each)
* Canadian Llama

At its best (bulk) price the Aqua Talon Chironomid hook is $0.08 cents more per hook than the Daiichi 1760. I would certainly pay an additional $0.08 cents for a superior hook! I would be much less inclined to do so for a hook with no discernable advantages (especially one not yet proven), and I certainly would not for a lesser hook.

Aqua Talon Chironomid Hook Review | Conclusion:

I started this review predicting that unseating the Daiichi 1760 would be a daunting task. Not because I have any loyalty to the 1760 (in fact I’d dump it like a dirty shirt if something better came along) but because it has proven itself to be so effective in hook ups, strength and consistency, for so many years, that I found it hard to believe that it could be improved upon! The ATC was the first hook in a long time that made me take a hard look at it! And to be honest, it’s a pretty good looking hook!

The ATC was developed around some pretty sensible ideas; a slightly bigger gap and a bit more shaft length to protect against fish teeth, and therefore early wear and tear of the fly. The problem that I think was unintentionally created in the attempt to reach these goals was an increase in dimensions approaching those of a larger hook size, without adjusting it’s labeled size. The result is that you can accomplish the exact same goals (a larger gap & a longer shaft length), with the bonus of a slightly heavier wire gauge, by simply utilizing a one size up D1760.

Which would you choose for your trophy trout hunting?

Although I give it an “A” for effort, its redundancy (the fact that you can accomplish the same outcomes with a one size up and already thoroughly proven Daiichi 1760) and its lighter gauge wire when matched to the D1760 by gap size, leads to the conclusion that the Aqua Talon Chironomid hook is a solution to a problem that never really existed.

In my opinion the ATC is not “just like the 1760 but with a bigger gap” and has not been served well described as such. Had it simply been marketed as a new/different style chironomid hook it then it could have been judged solely by it’s own merits. Claiming equivalency with the Daiichi 1760 sets that as the bar to which it will be evaluated … and at the end of that analysis, the winner, and still, chironomid hook champion remains the venerable Daiichi 1760.

Like our stuff? Subscribe by Feed or Email