3 1/2 vs. 3 vs. 2 3/4

Thanks for the information.

This year's duck season is almost over, but next year I was thinking I'd be better off with a 3 or 3 1/2 inch -capable gun, as opposed to the 2 3/4 I have now. Maybe I'll try it out with some good shells first and see how that works. If I'm not happy I can go to a bigger gun then......
 
sheephunter said:
As a general rule, (of which there are always exceptions) especially with steel, a 3" will give you more range than a 2 3/4 and a 3.5" will give you more range than a 3".
Click to expand...

That's a very amateurish generalization sheephunter...

The only thing that will increase your 'range' with a shotgun is skill that is acquired through practice.

The length of shell you are shooting, has little to nothing to do with it.
 
Covey Ridge said:
I think that the 3 1/2 inch may only be better in theory. I think that its only practical use with steel loads is realized on big geese at longer than average range and then only by those skilled enough to deliver the payload.
I think for most, the clunky guns involved and the mega recoil will not result in more birds in the bag but less. The 3 1/2 will throw more steel and burn more powder and cost more and sure as hell kicks a lot more. More is not alway better.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a fine theory to me.

The extra pellets in a 3.5" waterfowl load are useless to the average hunter.
 
What interest me the most,not one turkey was ever killed before the 3" and 3.5" shell was invented.If you hit an animal at 10 yards why would you want to have more lead in it before you eat it.I am scared of all 10 ga and 3.5 " guns.
 
ABDUKNUT said:
That's a very amateurish generalization sheephunter...

The only thing that will increase your 'range' with a shotgun is skill that is acquired through practice.

The length of shell you are shooting, has little to nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words!...:D

The length of shell you are shooting, has little to nothing to do with it
Click to expand...

So you are saying that a highly skilled shooter like yourself wouldn't gain a few extra yards with more pellets and more velocity....now who is making amateurish generalizations?
 
For the little extra in price buy a gun that shoots 2.75", 3" and 3.5". That way you can shoot what ever you think will work the best for you. I own both 12-3.5" and a 10 gauge and reload both. If 3.5 kicks too much shoot 3" or 2.75", if you can kill everything with 2.75" than buy and use only that size of shell. I don't give a dam what the other guy shoots because I want to shoot what ever size I want to shoot. If they start selling a 8 gauge I will want to have one of those to use on crows and pigeons?
Crowca the next time we go crow shooting you are going to use my 10 until your shoulder is relocated??
 
CROWCA said:
What interest me the most,not one turkey was ever killed before the 3" and 3.5" shell was invented.If you hit an animal at 10 yards why would you want to have more lead in it before you eat it.I am scared of all 10 ga and 3.5 " guns.
Click to expand...

The 3.5" 12 gauge shell was primarily introduced to serve the needs of waterfowlers shooting steel not turkey hunters shooting lead.
 
I have shot a turkey at about 15 yards with a 3.5 and its not really that different than any other. The pattern is the same size and its all in the birds head so it really doesnt matter much. The increased shot density just increases the "jelly head" effect.
I am really not trying to be arguementative here, I just really like the guns versatility. One does not have to shoot 3.5 all the time. Its just nice to have the option.
 
Personally, I don't consider the 3.5" option usefull (to me) and place absolutely zero value on it.

My first post in this thread was merely an attempt to clear up some misinformation that sheephunter was apparently confused with.

While I'm at it, let me also clarify, that 3.5" shotshells were not "primarily introduced to serve the needs of waterfowlers shooting steel"... More like, a marketing strategy to sell something new and more expensive to new or otherwise naive hunters.

Most or all 'old timer' (Pre-steel shot mandate) waterfowl hunters I've met have no use for them either, so I can't agree that there is or was ever, a 'need' for them. They seem to be popular only with the marketing-type shills, and the younger and newer hunters, who want to spread the infectious belief that shooting and killing ability can be bought of the shelf.
 
dilly said:
If you shoot a lot of steel at waterfowl at moderate to far ranges, 3.5 inch is nice to have and really doesnt kick too bad because steel is much lighter than lead. 3.5 turkey loads kick HARD because they are 2 oz of lead but they really penetrate through heavy bush and smoke turkeys good. 3.5 number 4 buck has 54 pellets...yeah, 54 pellets and it rolls a coyote over! 3.5 buckshot has 18 pellets (2 3/4 has 9)...thats twice as many pellets. It also kicks but kills close range driven deer DEAD!
I went to an Extrema a few years ago and never looked back. Sure, a 2 3/4 gun can do all of the above given perfect circumstances but I sure like having "heap big medicine" on hand.
Click to expand...

I have the opposite experience.

I think that the 2 1/4 ounce turkey load doesn't kick as hard as 3 1/2 inch black cloud or the 1625 fps winchester steel load(which I found to be brutal). I guess it could be that I was expecting HELLISH recoil with the Turkey load, so mentally I was more prepared for it.

Either way, the 3 1/2 isn't necessary, but it is a nice option to have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom