Should I Sell My Perfect Shotgun for a Perazzi?

I have shot ALOT of clays over the last few decades, the two standout worst shotguns for mechanical issues I have seen are 1100’s and Perrazzi, personally I wouldn’t own either, Caesar Guerini’s at least the ones I have seen or tried are the finest shotguns in their class in my opinion.
The only thing that matters is fit, I quite often outshoot squads of Kreigoff, Berretta, C.G. Owners with a spray painted Mossberg 500 , but I just find it amusing to beat a bunch of guys that spent 10 k with a $400 pump.
 
I know nothing about either shotgun or clay sports really, but I do know
You
Only
Live
Once
If it’s a great deal, and doesn’t take away from what you actually need, go for it. At the very least you will gain the knowledge of “what it’s like to own a Perazzi”
I personally hate leaving things undone or unknown if I could have… what if…?
 
If you can swing it financially, even taking a loan, buy the Perazzi and keep the Guerini for the short term but only shoot the Perazzi. You may find after a few months the Perazzi isn't everything you'd thought it would be and regret parting with the Guerini. If the Perazzi is everything you'd hoped for then sell the Guerini.

I shot a Perazzi for years and loved it until I tried a Beretta DT11. I owned both guns for a year and decided the DT was the one to keep. No regrets.

FWIW, I shot many tens of thousands of rounds through my Perazzi. I replaced one trigger spring. It takes about two minutes to accomplish. I had no other issues with the gun.
 
Use what fits you beat and you shoot best ... just because it costs thousands of dollars doesnt mean its good or good for you.

Browning Cynergy has been good for me and a great fit. and not that hard on pocketbook.

However, if you have the funds and you like a specific Perazzi model - why not
 
djm said:
P.S. - The "Perazzi Mystique" is not all it's cracked up to be ... do they still have welded tangs (?) ...

AND just like golf there are a lot of poseurs standing around that can't hit SFA...
Click to expand...
You mentioned previously that fit is important and you are correct. It doesn't matter what kind of gun you shoot, it has to fit to work well for you.
Lots of guys with expensive guns have been out shot by someone with an old pump shotgun but you need to look a bit closer at this, consider the possibility that the guy with the cheap gun is usually younger, has keen eyes and reflexes but doesn't have the money to buy an expensive gun. The guy with the expensive gun was probably like the younger guy a few years previous but now he has the means to afford the better gun except his ability is maybe deteriorating.
Your entitled to your opinion just like everyone else and can hate Perazzi guns and old shooters all you want but until you've owned one then you should not comment on how CG is the better gun because it's obvious you lack the experience to know.
 
I have never owned a Perazzi, I have only briefly shot a couple, so I can't judge them. I do own a K20 and an F3, so I do appreciate quality, but with the F3 just feels right, and my scores increased slightly almost immediately, when I started shooting it. As for the K20, I do like the reliability, but I really don't shoot it better than my Brownings.
Reliability wise, I haven't had issues with any of my clays guns, my K20 has over 40k rounds through it, m F3 over 20k, and some of my Brownings over 30k, but none have had really high shot counts, to compare long term reliability.
 
Falconflyer said:
You mentioned previously that fit is important and you are correct. It doesn't matter what kind of gun you shoot, it has to fit to work well for you.
Lots of guys with expensive guns have been out shot by someone with an old pump shotgun but you need to look a bit closer at this, consider the possibility that the guy with the cheap gun is usually younger, has keen eyes and reflexes but doesn't have the money to buy an expensive gun. The guy with the expensive gun was probably like the younger guy a few years previous but now he has the means to afford the better gun except his ability is maybe deteriorating.
Your entitled to your opinion just like everyone else and can hate Perazzi guns and old shooters all you want but until you've owned one then you should not comment on how CG is the better gun because it's obvious you lack the experience to know.
Click to expand...
I don't hate older shooters because I've been shooting for more than 55yrs myself - I don't hate Perazzi's because I'm familiar with them I just don't agree with the value placed upon them.

In reference to the above reply to my original post - in the last half-century plus, I've actually seen, heard, read and tolerated way too much BS.
 
Arietta said:
If you can swing it financially, even taking a loan, buy the Perazzi and keep the Guerini for the short term but only shoot the Perazzi. You may find after a few months the Perazzi isn't everything you'd thought it would be and regret parting with the Guerini.
Click to expand...
Yes don't sell anything yet
 
djm said:
I don't hate older shooters because I've been shooting for more than 55yrs myself - I don't hate Perazzi's because I'm familiar with them I just don't agree with the value placed upon them.

In reference to the above reply to my original post - in the last half-century plus, I've actually seen, heard, read and tolerated way too much BS.
Click to expand...
"seen, heard, read and tolerated too much BS."


That makes two of us!
 
But what if the Perazzi becomes my new perfect gun?

This is the problem I keep running into. I can make a perfectly logical argument for keeping my Caesar Guerini Summit. I can make an equally logical argument for buying an Invictus.

And then my brain whispers, “Yeah, but... Perazzi.”

One thing I suspect I would miss about the Caesar Guerini is the tramline rib. I'm cross-eye dominant, and the tramline rib design has helped me significantly with that issue.

When I had my Beretta SV10, the narrow field rib meant my left eye would constantly try to take over once the clays started flying. The result was a confusing situation where my eyes were essentially fighting over who got to be in charge of shooting the gun.

When I switched to the Browning, which is an actual sporting gun, the wider rib helped considerably. My left eye would still occasionally try to take over, but it happened much less often.

Then I moved to the Caesar Guerini with its tapered tramline rib, and suddenly the problem disappeared completely. I have never once had an issue with my left eye taking over while shooting the Summit.

The Perazzi isn't a tramline rib, but it is tapered. So I will need to pay very close attention to what my left eye decides to do when I shoot it. If my left eye starts trying to take over again, that would be an absolute dealbreaker.

At that point, I should probably just buy an Invictus.

The Invictus is a pretty slick gun, and Caesar Guerini's presence in the ISSF World Cup is growing quickly. They advertise it as a million-round gun, which means I will probably never wear one out and even if I could, the gun can be rebuilt very easily. In fact, at my rate of shooting, the gun will likely outlive me, my daughter, and possibly several future owners.

And the Invictus fits me exactly the same way as my Summit.

I don't even have an adjustable comb on my Summit. That's how perfect the gun fits me. The Summit is already an overbuilt Brescia action with the styling of a Perazzi and Perazzi-style ejectors. The Invictus is essentially an even more overbuilt version of the Summit.

I actually prefer Caesar Guerini's Perazzi-style ejectors to actual Perazzi ejectors. Caesar Guerini added a detent that catches the ejector on the way back in, so if your thumb slips and you didn't get that retaining disc back in, you don't suddenly find yourself playing Where's Waldo? — Perazzi ejector edition.

So, if I want a nicer gun than my Summit, I may have just made an extremely compelling argument for buying an Invictus.

The logical decision is becoming increasingly obvious.

The Summit fits me perfectly.

The Invictus fits me exactly the same way, but is even more overbuilt.

The Invictus has the rib design I already know works for my eyes.

I could probably shoot it for the rest of my life without ever wearing it out.

The Invictus is, by every logical measure, probably the better choice.

...

But still.

Perazzi.
 
I have been using the buy new and keep old before deciding for many years now. I am up to pretty much 4 of everything.

I replaced my CG 3 times now because it is just too beautiful to drag through the bush and too expensive to justify keeping. Every time I inspect it for possible sale it goes back in the safe.

It is very difficult to sell something that works perfectly and is well liked.
 
Mumbles Marble Mouth said:
But what if the Perazzi becomes my new perfect gun?

This is the problem I keep running into. I can make a perfectly logical argument for keeping my Caesar Guerini Summit. I can make an equally logical argument for buying an Invictus.

And then my brain whispers, “Yeah, but... Perazzi.”

One thing I suspect I would miss about the Caesar Guerini is the tramline rib. I'm cross-eye dominant, and the tramline rib design has helped me significantly with that issue.

When I had my Beretta SV10, the narrow field rib meant my left eye would constantly try to take over once the clays started flying. The result was a confusing situation where my eyes were essentially fighting over who got to be in charge of shooting the gun.

When I switched to the Browning, which is an actual sporting gun, the wider rib helped considerably. My left eye would still occasionally try to take over, but it happened much less often.

Then I moved to the Caesar Guerini with its tapered tramline rib, and suddenly the problem disappeared completely. I have never once had an issue with my left eye taking over while shooting the Summit.

The Perazzi isn't a tramline rib, but it is tapered. So I will need to pay very close attention to what my left eye decides to do when I shoot it. If my left eye starts trying to take over again, that would be an absolute dealbreaker.

At that point, I should probably just buy an Invictus.

The Invictus is a pretty slick gun, and Caesar Guerini's presence in the ISSF World Cup is growing quickly. They advertise it as a million-round gun, which means I will probably never wear one out and even if I could, the gun can be rebuilt very easily. In fact, at my rate of shooting, the gun will likely outlive me, my daughter, and possibly several future owners.

And the Invictus fits me exactly the same way as my Summit.

I don't even have an adjustable comb on my Summit. That's how perfect the gun fits me. The Summit is already an overbuilt Brescia action with the styling of a Perazzi and Perazzi-style ejectors. The Invictus is essentially an even more overbuilt version of the Summit.

I actually prefer Caesar Guerini's Perazzi-style ejectors to actual Perazzi ejectors. Caesar Guerini added a detent that catches the ejector on the way back in, so if your thumb slips and you didn't get that retaining disc back in, you don't suddenly find yourself playing Where's Waldo? — Perazzi ejector edition.

So, if I want a nicer gun than my Summit, I may have just made an extremely compelling argument for buying an Invictus.

The logical decision is becoming increasingly obvious.

The Summit fits me perfectly.

The Invictus fits me exactly the same way, but is even more overbuilt.

The Invictus has the rib design I already know works for my eyes.

I could probably shoot it for the rest of my life without ever wearing it out.

The Invictus is, by every logical measure, probably the better choice.

...

But still.

Perazzi.
Click to expand...
It would seem the solution is to find the money another way... Keep your perfect gun and choose later after you have made a proper decision. Cheers
 
If your current gun is "perfect" there is absolutely no way to improve upon it, therefore replacing it is logically incoherent. However there are many guns i own for illogical reasons. You have to simply ask yourself what is more important, the logical course of action where you keep the tried and true gun, or the illogical course of action where you risk a swap for the potential reward of a higher esthetic or other subjective value. Thats the crux of your dilemma, nobody can help you decide which course of action you should take. For myself anything clay related i am 100% practical and logical. If i can get consistently high scores i will not spend a cent upgrading, that money is better spent on ammo. However black powder related shooting i am totally illogical and i value my own esthetic preferences higher than accuracy, ease of use, or cost. As a general caution: be wary of selling a gun you like, its almost never worth it in the end.
 
I’ve come up with a plan that feels too good not to follow through with.

I like my Summit. I also like the Invictus, and I was seriously considering upgrading to one for a while. However, before making any decisions, I’m going to test the Perazzi first. This is the most important step in the entire plan, and somehow, I think I’ve managed to create a situation where there are no bad outcomes.

Outcome one: I test the Perazzi and decide I don’t like it as much as I expected. In that case, I keep my Summit and eventually upgrade to an Invictus.

Outcome two: I test the Perazzi and really like it, so I proceed with acquiring it. Over time, I may continue to love the Perazzi and decide to keep it. Or, I may eventually realize that I still prefer my Caesar Guerini.

If that happens, I could very likely recover most, if not all, of my money by selling the lightly used Perazzi. I could then use that money to buy a new Invictus.

So, no matter what happens, I somehow end up with one of the three guns I really want: the Summit, the Perazzi, or the Invictus.

I believe this is what economists call a win-win-win situation.

My wife may use a different term for it. 😅
 
Mumbles Marble Mouth said:
But what if the Perazzi becomes my new perfect gun?

This is the problem I keep running into. I can make a perfectly logical argument for keeping my Caesar Guerini Summit. I can make an equally logical argument for buying an Invictus.

And then my brain whispers, “Yeah, but... Perazzi.”

One thing I suspect I would miss about the Caesar Guerini is the tramline rib. I'm cross-eye dominant, and the tramline rib design has helped me significantly with that issue.

When I had my Beretta SV10, the narrow field rib meant my left eye would constantly try to take over once the clays started flying. The result was a confusing situation where my eyes were essentially fighting over who got to be in charge of shooting the gun.

When I switched to the Browning, which is an actual sporting gun, the wider rib helped considerably. My left eye would still occasionally try to take over, but it happened much less often.

Then I moved to the Caesar Guerini with its tapered tramline rib, and suddenly the problem disappeared completely. I have never once had an issue with my left eye taking over while shooting the Summit.

The Perazzi isn't a tramline rib, but it is tapered. So I will need to pay very close attention to what my left eye decides to do when I shoot it. If my left eye starts trying to take over again, that would be an absolute dealbreaker.

At that point, I should probably just buy an Invictus.

The Invictus is a pretty slick gun, and Caesar Guerini's presence in the ISSF World Cup is growing quickly. They advertise it as a million-round gun, which means I will probably never wear one out and even if I could, the gun can be rebuilt very easily. In fact, at my rate of shooting, the gun will likely outlive me, my daughter, and possibly several future owners.

And the Invictus fits me exactly the same way as my Summit.

I don't even have an adjustable comb on my Summit. That's how perfect the gun fits me. The Summit is already an overbuilt Brescia action with the styling of a Perazzi and Perazzi-style ejectors. The Invictus is essentially an even more overbuilt version of the Summit.

I actually prefer Caesar Guerini's Perazzi-style ejectors to actual Perazzi ejectors. Caesar Guerini added a detent that catches the ejector on the way back in, so if your thumb slips and you didn't get that retaining disc back in, you don't suddenly find yourself playing Where's Waldo? — Perazzi ejector edition.

So, if I want a nicer gun than my Summit, I may have just made an extremely compelling argument for buying an Invictus.

The logical decision is becoming increasingly obvious.

The Summit fits me perfectly.

The Invictus fits me exactly the same way, but is even more overbuilt.

The Invictus has the rib design I already know works for my eyes.

I could probably shoot it for the rest of my life without ever wearing it out.

The Invictus is, by every logical measure, probably the better choice.

...

But still.

Perazzi.
Click to expand...

The above post reminds me a bit of the old joke about the woman who goes to the husband store and while the husbands get better in each successive room she looks in she is intrigued by what might be in the next one but when she gets to the last the room it doesn't have a husband in it and she can't go back.

I'm not trying to talk you into or out of the Perazzi, or the CG for that matter.

It sounds like you feel you need that tram line rib so if that really is the case then you should stick with it however there are other ways to deal with cross eye dominance. On the other hand, you shouldn't even see the rib while you are shooting.

I'm a bit intrigued by CG's claim that the Invictus uses a "modular" design for more durability, when I look at pictures of it I see no difference from the Summit model for almost double the price. The cute little video on the CG website gives away nothing technically speaking and only shows off the shininess of the receiver.
In regards to the receiver, the CG uses a Browning Citori type lockup that while it is time proven is not as solid as the Boss style action used by Perazzi, Zoli, Purdey and a few others. It's entirely rebuildable though just like the Boss, a new locking block can be put into a Perazzi for under $500 so expense here is not even a consideration.
The 20 g Summit Sporting that I have fits me perfectly without an adjustable comb and I shoot it as well as any gun I own so I have to say that I really like the gun.
I honestly don't see almost double the value moving from the Summit to the Invictus but that's just me. If I had to shoot a Summit for the rest of my life I could certainly live with that!

Good luck with your decision, I'm glad I don't have to put myself through the agony you are! Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom