# 8 or 10" auger ???



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

sureshot006 said:


> No... it's not a need. It's a want. Unless they're fishing sturgeon?


I remember a guy in Canada telling me, " If you get an auger, make sure it's a real one, not one of those small 6-8" models !" Never knew what he meant until I fished over there and we had 39" of ice. We lost so many fish in the 8" holes just because we couldn't get the big walleyes started into it. He was bringing every fish thru his easily. Never figured 2" would make that much difference. Well, I won't be fishing there again not do I think I'll ever see 39" of ice in this state again. That example showed me that a 10" hole WAS necessary. Some guys today have told me the same. The 10" hole makes starting the fish up thru it alot easier. Again, I'll figure it out. One thing I'll say is, the 8" augers tend to be more reasonably priced


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

johnIV said:


> I remember a guy in Canada telling me, " If you get an auger, make sure it's a real one, not one of those small 6-8" models !" Never knew what he meant until I fished over there and we had 39" of ice. We lost so many fish in the 8" holes just because we couldn't get the big walleyes started into it. He was bringing every fish thru his easily. Never figured 2" would make that much difference. Well, I won't be fishing there again not do I think I'll ever see 39" of ice in this state again. That example showed me that a 10" hole WAS necessary. Some guys today have told me the same. The 10" hole makes starting the fish up thru it alot easier. Again, I'll figure it out. One thing I'll say is, the 8" augers tend to be more reasonably priced


Doesnt matter if its 39 or 9" of ice the opening is the same. The line angle would vary, but it's so slight it shouldn't matter much. But yeah starting them is the biggest advantage by far.

10s are heavier, pose more of a safety hazard and more chance stuff can fall in than an 8. Other than those things, a 10" has the advantage. It's all about weighing pros and cons for yourself.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

This little back and forth reminded me of something else about the muskie I caught - if the ice was super thick I would've never got it in. I had that fish hooked in the corner of the mouth and had it under my hole 3 times but each time I got the hook under my hole, the nose of the muskie was already past the hole. I had to stick my arm down the hole with a gaff and was able to just stick it's lip and get it out.


----------



## woodie slayer (Feb 25, 2006)

when walleye fishing with my 8 inch auger i always carry a spud and chop out bottom of hole to get fish started.jigging rapalas have a bad habit of catching on the bottom of your hole and the eye gets off but ive found if you round it off they slide right up


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

I agreed it's a preference issue. I do not think one is better than the other. Kinda like a guy saying a half ton truck is a better option than a three quarter ton truck. You may never need a 3/4 ton but having the reserve muscle/ payload is always nice if needed. You may never need a 10" hole but having that extra opening makes getting fish thru a bit easier.


----------



## usedtobeayooper (Feb 13, 2008)

sureshot006 said:


> Doesnt matter if its 39 or 9" of ice the opening is the same. The line angle would vary, but it's so slight it shouldn't matter much.


Something tells me, you haven't fished much 39" ice. A 10" hole is a full 1-1/2 times larger than an 8" by area. That is significant, and most definitely does help on very thick ice.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

usedtobeayooper said:


> Something tells me, you haven't fished much 39" ice. A 10" hole is a full 1-1/2 times larger than an 8" by area. That is significant, and most definitely does help on very thick ice.


No you're right I've fished 36" of ice many times. You realize the diameter of the hole is 10" no matter the ice thickness right? I suspect you dont know what I meant by the angle of the line being the only difference.

The size of the fish makes more difference than the ice thickness, by far.


----------



## usedtobeayooper (Feb 13, 2008)

Yes, I understand your point about the angle of the line… and, of course a 10” hole is a 10” hole regardless of thickness… but we aren’t comparing 10” augers to 10” augers. I simply noted that a larger hole diameter, particularly one that increases the opening by more than 50%, such as a 10” vs. an 8”, most certainly does aid significantly in fish retrieval when you’re attempting to steer the head into the bottom of the hole several feet below you.


I have no interest in turning this into an argument, but I grew up in one of the coldest counties in Michigan, and was well accustomed to needing an extension on the old eskimo auger almost every winter… I can tell you, when fishing walleye and pike, having that increased access absolutely does improve the process. Is it absolutely necessary? Of course not. Do you need it when the ice is thin? No (just as I mentioned much earlier in this thread). But the advantage in those conditions is very real.


That said… I don’t live up there anymore, and rarely get up there to ice fish. So I now own a 5” and an 8”… not a 10”… as I find it to be unnecessary down here.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

usedtobeayooper said:


> Yes, I understand your point about the angle of the line… and, of course a 10” hole is a 10” hole regardless of thickness… but we aren’t comparing 10” augers to 10” augers. I simply noted that a larger hole diameter, particularly one that increases the opening by more than 50%, such as a 10” vs. an 8”, most certainly does aid significantly in fish retrieval when you’re attempting to steer the head into the bottom of the hole several feet below you.
> 
> 
> I have no interest in turning this into an argument, but I grew up in one of the coldest counties in Michigan, and was well accustomed to needing an extension on the old eskimo auger almost every winter… I can tell you, when fishing walleye and pike, having that increased access absolutely does improve the process. Is it absolutely necessary? Of course not. Do you need it when the ice is thin? No (just as I mentioned much earlier in this thread). But the advantage in those conditions is very real.
> ...


So it sounds like we don't disagree after all.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

There's advantages of both. Whether you take advantage of those is up to you. A 10" hole fishing over 8 fow isn't the best option. I fished Mitchell's bay in Ontario for many years and 5-6" holes are all you can get away with before spooking fish. It was usually 2-4 fow. Most or alot of my fishing is in 15-30 fow. I think an 8" hole is perfect in 90% of all my situations.


----------



## TheMAIT (Nov 7, 2005)

6-8"...I've never seen reason to go bigger...if you are running into bigger fish and are lucky enough to have issues, just drill a connector hole.


----------



## TheMAIT (Nov 7, 2005)

woodie slayer said:


> when walleye fishing with my 8 inch auger i always carry a spud and chop out bottom of hole to get fish started.jigging rapalas have a bad habit of catching on the bottom of your hole and the eye gets off but ive found if you round it off they slide right up


Does chopping out the bottom create any sharper edges in the ice which create issues with your line...or is it the opposite? I'm always nervous when I see my line sawing back and forth across the bottom of the ice in my opening.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

TheMAIT said:


> Does chopping out the bottom create any sharper edges in the ice which create issues with your line...or is it the opposite? I'm always nervous when I see my line sawing back and forth across the bottom of the ice in my opening.


No more than the auger would leaving a nice smooth edge on that hole at the bottom.


----------



## Out-Kast (Feb 10, 2020)

Gillgitter said:


> 8 inches is plenty. (Ask your wife/girlfriend :lol: )


----------



## the roofer (Jan 14, 2009)

woodie slayer said:


> when walleye fishing with my 8 inch auger i always carry a spud and chop out bottom of hole to get fish started.jigging rapalas have a bad habit of catching on the bottom of your hole and the eye gets off but ive found if you round it off they slide right up


She got me for 2 spuds..now I got a rope from spud to my neck.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

TheMAIT said:


> Does chopping out the bottom create any sharper edges in the ice which create issues with your line...or is it the opposite? I'm always nervous when I see my line sawing back and forth across the bottom of the ice in my opening.


Used to make a line of 3- 8" holes and spud the centers. Made a gaff swipe really easy and effective. Some guys wont use gaffs and I will say faffing in an 8" hole is kind of a risky maneuver but if you've got more room like with the 24+" slot, it works really well.


----------



## TK81 (Mar 28, 2009)

usedtobeayooper said:


> Something tells me, you haven't fished much 39" ice. A 10" hole is a full 1-1/2 times larger than an 8" by area. That is significant, and most definitely does help on very thick ice.


My canadian relatives cut a slide for ease pulling big lakers and pike through anything more than a couple feet of ice.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

TK81 said:


> My canadian relatives cut a slide for ease pulling big lakers and pike through anything more than a couple feet of ice.


Good idea


----------



## Smallie12 (Oct 21, 2010)

Radar420 said:


> This little back and forth reminded me of something else about the muskie I caught - if the ice was super thick I would've never got it in. I had that fish hooked in the corner of the mouth and had it under my hole 3 times but each time I got the hook under my hole, the nose of the muskie was already past the hole. I had to stick my arm down the hole with a gaff and was able to just stick it's lip and get it out.


Similar story here.......A few years ago got a nice crappie, still marks on flasher, got right back down and bobber never stopped and I immediately set into another but it was pulling harder than any crappie I've ever hooked. Come to find out it was a monster northern probably 45" and around 20lbs that had eaten a 12" crappie that hit on the fall (I eventually got the crappie because the pike finally let go) but for nearly 8 minutes two of us could not start the pike's head up the hole because we couldn't reach it with 20" of ice and I was using my 10" auger that I always do but didn't want to pull the jig out of the crappie's mouth. I didn't have a gaff at the time but I sure as heck do now just in case. I lose way fewer fish with a 10" hole imo and tangle with the transducer cord less when I can't get to it in time. To each their own though. I was only in the market for one that I wanted to do every kind of fishing with and it was $10 more than an 8" so I went with it. No regrets, but ya, it's heavy.


----------



## Smallie12 (Oct 21, 2010)

the roofer said:


> She got me for 2 spuds..now I got a rope from spud to my neck.


At least now when you drop your spud down the hole you'll get a good look at what is down there, haha


----------



## 7mmsendero (Dec 2, 2010)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Why not just drill three 8" holes? Seems like hauling out the extra auger would be a drag. I can't imagine I'd ever use a 5" auger if I had a bigger one.


I put the 5” tight to the edge of my shanty, three 8” gets pretty crowded. I’ll be honest, I haven’t used my 8” much the past couple years. I scout around with 5”, only use the 8” if I’m sure there’s walleye around. I caught a 17 lb pike using the 5”, of course I had to drill it out. It’s kind of made me a little careless I guess.


----------



## Martian (Apr 28, 2011)

jmo., but you will never need a 10 in. hole


----------



## unclecbass (Sep 29, 2005)

8. Unless you like busted ankles


----------



## unclecbass (Sep 29, 2005)

The only thing I use my 10 for is lake trout


----------

