3 1/2 vs 3

Jay said:
Noted. Although patterns are funny thing... Your choice of choke & shell has a huge effect on what your shotgun will pattern like.

In my case, I chose the 3.5" #2 shell because it patterns well & puts more pellets into that pattern. A thinner pattern (less pellets) results in fewer hits on target.
Click to expand...

In my doubles at least, low brass upland shells pattern rather better than high brass ones. Reading up on it back in the day, I decided that it's because the greater powder loads blew through the shot column and therefore disrupted the uniformity of the pattern. The effect was of course more noticeable on moving targets.

Maybe it's me, but I find low brass upland rounds hard to find these days, glad I bought a case of them to hunt with and can do practice shooting with target rounds.
 
Had an SBE and an 870 in 3.5", now have a few doubles, 3" 12 & 20 ga, not killing any less birds than I used to, not saving any loot on ammo either, other than I only take two shots at a time now. Recoil is about the same as the SBE, for me anyways.
 
My 3" Win SX3 kills all the ducks geese and cranes I am allowed: hi vel Faststeel #2 for ducks and small geese but BB for big honkers and cranes. It has also cycled many hundreds of 1 oz target loads without a hitch. Don't need the cost or recoil associated with 3 1/2" thanks.
 
Have an A400, SX3 and 870s, all of which are 3". Never felt undergunned. But don't goose hunt either. I don't buy the gun based on resale value either, I buy it to shoot.
 
stubblejumper said:
Some people that see these charts do get the idea, that if they use the listed ammunition, they should be shooting at the longest ranges listed. I was invited to a shoot where two individuals showed up with high dollar 3-1/2" loads, and then shot before the leader called the shooters to open fire. These two figured that since they had supposedly longer range ammunition, they should start shooting sooner. Oddly enough, those two killed less geese than anyone else.
Click to expand...

No one needs guys like that in the blind. Ridiculous!!
 
I have a Mossberg 935 that I use exclusively for waterfowl and geese. I mostly use 3” shells, but I regularly use 2 3/4” shells for small ducks. I only use 3.5” shells during the early goose season as my hunt mostly consists of pass shooting. If I had to choose between a 3” or a 3.5” gun, I’d go with a 3.5” gun even if most of the shells I use are 2 3/4” or 3”. I dont mind the extra weight or receiver length....for me it makes the gun a more comfortable shooting gun.

As an aside, my Mossberg 935 shoots target loads well. Not sure what the point is of shooting 3/4oz or 1oz loads out of a 3.5” semi auto....never tried as its never made any sense to me.....Kind of like using metric wrenches and sockets on SAE nuts and bolts...
 
stubblejumper said:
Some people that see these charts do get the idea, that if they use the listed ammunition, they should be shooting at the longest ranges listed. I was invited to a shoot where two individuals showed up with high dollar 3-1/2" loads, and then shot before the leader called the shooters to open fire. These two figured that since they had supposedly longer range ammunition, they should start shooting sooner. Oddly enough, those two killed less geese than anyone else.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to bet that those 2 individuals are more a product of marketing than they are anything else.
 
rkm456 said:
I'm willing to bet that those 2 individuals are more a product of marketing than they are anything else.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Many people are the product of marketing these days, that is why so many people pay extra for certain firearms and ammunition. That is what spawned the long range craze in rifle shooting.
 
All I will say is I bought 2 3" Maxus as I have no desire for a 3.5" gun . To me its more about how is your face you can get birds . Not how far away I can cripple a bird . Yes 3.5"shells deliver more payload that only pays if your pattern is good and in the right spot .
 
stubblejumper said:
Exactly! Many people are the product of marketing these days, that is why so many people pay extra for certain firearms and ammunition. That is what spawned the long range craze in rifle shooting.
Click to expand...

Personally I shoot 3.5's when I'm hunting. The cost isn't prohibitive, and the recoil doesn't bother me. I also don't take shots beyond 40 yards.
 
Thank God for the development of 3 1/2" shells. Back when they were only 2 3/4" (or less!) I'm sure no geese ever got shot. I mean, how could they have been, with hunters only armed with those puny little shells. Bring on the 4" shell....I mean, more is better, right?
 
canvasback said:
Thank God for the development of 3 1/2" shells. Back when they were only 2 3/4" (or less!) I'm sure no geese ever got shot. I mean, how could they have been, with hunters only armed with those puny little shells. Bring on the 4" shell....I mean, more is better, right?
Click to expand...

When it's pellets on target, yes. More is better. But I'd go 10 gauge before I went 4" 12's. If 10 gauge was good enough for the old timers...
 
rkm456 said:
When it's pellets on target, yes. More is better. But I'd go 10 gauge before I went 4" 12's. If 10 gauge was good enough for the old timers...
Click to expand...

Punt guns were good enough for the oldtimers. Look up "2 bore" on Wikipedia sometime if you really want to be impressed with what the oldtimers believed to be totally reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom