3" vs 3.5" shotshells for duck hunting

[northwoodslivin]

Interesting side note for you guys that have no idea what the hell a forcing cone does for felt recoil.
The new Remington 870's all have 3 1/2 inch chambered barrels regardless of reciever size. They make it very easy to compare felt recoil with a long chamber/forcing cone. Measurable difference? You betcha.
I checked the first post John.... he never asked about 10 gauge... which by the way is as dead as Jed Clampett.

This is true.

I have tried this myself with an old winchester chambered for 3" and my 870 chambered in 3 1/2"
There is much less recoil firing a 3" shell in my 870SM compared to the 3" shell in the winchester.

 

[gth]

This is true.

I have tried this myself with an old winchester chambered for 3" and my 870 chambered in 3 1/2"
There is much less recoil firing a 3" shell in my 870SM compared to the 3" shell in the winchester.

Smothing and extending of forcing cones has been done by shotgun target shooters for years. Its main purpose was improving patterns.

I would guess the 870 is heavier therefore producing less felt recoil from the 3" shell. Or one of the many other variable affecting recoil is at play there because I doubt you would notice any difference between 2 identical guns (one having lengthened forcing cones beign the only difference).

The amount that porting a barrel or lenghtening forcing cones will reduce recoil is pretty much non-existant in my experience. I will make it louder and possibly pattern better.

 

[Johnn Peterson]

Quoting Johnn Peterson


Prior to your noteworthy "waaah waaah get a real gun" exhibition of intelligence , my interest delt with the option of using Bismuth vs opening the chokes of my AYA 10ga. 'real gun' SxS to handle steel.
"If I want to debate your statement"? What statement? Nothing you 'stated' pertained to my concerns dealing with 10ga. reload options, or is of any other interest to me. Sounds more like you've been giving yourself a wedgie with your new pantyhose, rather than giving a credible statement of some value.

Not to get in a pissing match with you sir because that is not my intentions here.
But how do you define your 10 gauge as a "real" gun?
If I am not mistaken, 10 gauge has a wicked kick to it, and shells are hard to come by in the shot you want..
I am sorry to say, but your 10 gauge is just that, a 10 gauge. You made it clear you have to open your chokes to shoot anything other then led correct? so how does this make your 10 gauge a "real" gun in today's hunting world for say umm, waterfowl? Mind you, you can shoot bismuth shells but holy smokes that is going to run you for a 10 gauge if you can even find the stuff locally.

as for reloading. I would highly recommend it for a 10 gauge, not worth it for 12 unless of course you want to load bismuth and save yourself roughly 40% cost on each shell doing it yourself "least this is what I read from a member on here which does this for his 12 gauge"

I would have to say, comparing my 870 super mag in 3.5 I would have to say, my gun is a lot more "real" then your gun in today's world.
No offense, just found it a little [/QUOTE]
I realize there is 'newer & better' out there and my 10ga. 3.5" AYA is not 'state of the art' but it is in like new condition. Also, I have quite a number of empty hulls and wads, at least enough to keep me going for years. Oh, it wasn't me that started the 'real gun' designation. Perhaps your 870 super mag is a lot more of a real gun, than mine, in today's world.
A quick check of a reload manual it appears both the 12ga 3.5" & 10ga 3.5" can be loaded with up to a maximum of 2 1/4oz of lead shot and 1 7/8oz of Bismuth. A slight difference does exist in the listing for steel, a maximum of 1 1/2oz for the 10ga 3.5" and 1 1/4oz for the 12ga 3.5".
So, if I was in the market for a new Water Foul gun, I'd probably go for a 3.5" 12ga, but having the gun I have, in the condition it is in as well as the components I have, what would you do? Is there any significant difference in the capabilities of one over the other? I think I'm probably better off sticking with what I have as it appears to pretty well match the 12ga 3.5", unless there is some major aspect of superiority I'm missing.
Again, as I see it, I have three options. Open the chokes for steel, go to Bismuth with the increased cost factor and this was one consideration I mentioned prior to the "waaah waaah" comment. And I guess a third option would be to sell my 10ga and get an 870.
It does 'boot' pretty good but there's always the option of forcing cone modifications.

 

[BigUglyMan]

3" is LOTS for ducks and adequate for geese as long as ranges are sensible. 3.5" will let you reach farther, but not necessary for ducks as they're usually coming in whereas geese are more often (for me) shot on the pass.

 

[B-N]

I have no interest in getting involved in the above pissing match, but would like to chime in on deke's question, and hopefully get the thread back on track.

Throughout the past years, I have really began to enjoy duck hunting.

I have always used a shotgun with 3" shells and have wondered what I am actually missing by not "upgrading" to a shotgun with 3.5" shells.

Look forward to your comments.

Regards

d.

For those of you who forgot.

I miss the good old "lead" days...

Steel is not a ballistic material...

I'm not old enough to yearn for the days of lead (I'm 25 now, doesn't seem like lead has been gone for over 10 years), but if it kills waterfowl half as good as they say it did, would make for a hard adjustment.

I find it funny that you go into a gun shop and people are talking WF(waterfowl) and reminiscing on the days of lead and cursing steel and how ineffective it is, how many more cripples they seem to get, etc....

Now these are all legitimate statements, no question about it, Lead>>>>>Steel.

BUT they then say things like "You don't need 3 1/2" shells, 3" is enough." Do they not see the irony in that?? Those two statements seem to contradict each other, "steel is junk, I cripple more birds, but I am not going to use a more powerful shell". I would like to point the finger at all the old boys, but I have a friend (25 y.o.) who says the EXACT same thing, it blows my mind every time.

Don't get me wrong, there has been some excellent post about spending more time shooting clays, picking your shots, pattern your gun, use the correct choke for your gun in a specific situation(imp. cyl. over deke's, mod for pass shooting is the rule of thumb, patterning will tell you what you need and when), etc..... All good advice, you won't kill a bird that isn't hit hard. BUT in most cases doing these thing don't exclude the 3 1/2" gun or ammo. If it is going to dip into your kids college fund, or put your mother in a crappy nursing home, then no, the 3" is fine. If you are going to go out and buy a new 12 ga. look at a 3 1/2" gun long and hard, aside from a small increase in price (go work an overtime shift one weekend) there is no disadvantage. Is there a law that says you have to shoot 3 1/2" shells??

I can remember reading a quote from some old time market hunter, the gist of it was something to the effect of 'I believe in shooting WF as hard as I can, they are too tough and beautiful to give them anything less than a clean kill'. That isn't the direct quote, I think it is in the duck hunters bible, somewhere around the part where he is talking about caliber (gauge) and shot size, don't have the book at university with me.

I personally don't subscribe to the 3 1/2" steel shell dramatically increase your range. Lots of people claim they are making outrageous shots with 3 1/2" guns, IMO most of them are full of it OR they have no idea how far away 70 yards really is(The only reason to be shooting at birds that far away is if you 100% KNOW it is a cripple, at that point in time it doesn't hurt anything, the bird could be lost if you can't put him down asap).

IMO 3 1/2" will increase the effective range over a 3" by 5 yards or so, not a whole lot, but any duck hit inside that range should be hit harder and have fewer cripples.

If you can handle the additional recoil of the 3 1/2" shell and it is within your financial means, pick up a few cases of clays, some target ammo and go for it.

NOTE: I don't know what M12shooter and win70 think about 3 1/2" shells, I merely used them as an illustration of the opinions that people have about steel, opinions that I whole heartedly agree with, steel sucks.

 

[BIGREDD]

Smothing and extending of forcing cones has been done by shotgun target shooters for years. Its main purpose was improving patterns.

I would guess the 870 is heavier therefore producing less felt recoil from the 3" shell. Or one of the many other variable affecting recoil is at play there because I doubt you would notice any difference between 2 identical guns (one having lengthened forcing cones beign the only difference).

The amount that porting a barrel or lenghtening forcing cones will reduce recoil is pretty much non-existant in my experience. I will make it louder and possibly pattern better.

gth I respect your opinion, but I can anly assume you have never lengthened a forcing cone in one of your own shotguns. If you had you would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will FEEL a difference. The gradual distribution of shot over a longer forcing cone Does allow for better patterns, as you say, and does reduce FELT recoil.

Check this out.
http://www.guncustomizing.com/tech.htm

 

[gth]

I have had the cones (both ends also)worked in a GTI and a 525 in the last 10 years. The 525 being maybe 4 years ago. Maybe I have uber strong sholders or yours are uber sensitive , but honestly in both cases I felt no difference. Sadly I experienced no dramatic difference in patterns either . I sould have spent the $150 having the stock fitted instead.

Did you guys completely miss the part about the 3 1/2 inch guns having LONGER CHAMBERS AND LONGER FORCING CONES??? This means that the 3.5's have less recoil than a 3 inch gun shooting 3 inch shells through both.

Are the forcing cones on a factory 3.5" gun longer than the cones on a 3" gun? I dont see that info anywhere. I was under the impression that they were both the same, with the 3.5" obviously having a longer chamber.. Right around 5/8". Because if the are the same length the resistance will be the same and there will be no advantage there, especially with the rough damn cones that remington produces.

 

[Grouse Man]

The problem with steel is that it loses it's high velocity quickly, more quickly than lead. As long as ranges are reasonably close, that high velocity steel kills well. But it doesn't carry it's energy as well as lead, and it's deceleration curve is also different from lead (less fwd allowance at close range, more fwd allowance at longer range). Steel will be wounding at a range where lead would kill.

Now the real question is; where does that drop-off occur, and does the typical hunter shoot beyond that range?

Myself, there's nothing like seeing birds coming into the decoys and getting hammered. There's also nothing like seeing birds winging overhead and making that looooooong bomb drop into the water. But I know my best percentage is over decoys, or just above tree-top height around a beaver dam. Under those conditions, 2-3/4" HV steel works fine.

 

[NDB]

Steel & choke question

In the same general vein, what is involved in modifying the chokes on an older fixed choke 12 Guage? Is this feasible? I have an O/U 12 Ga 2 3/4" full over modified and as far as I can determine, I could shoot steel through the modified choke but not the full. I'm only shooting clays at the moment but if I wanted to shoot WF, what would be the best way to go, short of buying anothe, newer gun??

 

[BIGREDD]

I have had the cones (both ends also)worked in a GTI and a 525 in the last 10 years. The 525 being maybe 4 years ago. Maybe I have uber strong sholders or yours are uber sensitive , but honestly in both cases I felt no difference. Sadly I experienced no dramatic difference in patterns either . I sould have spent the $150 having the stock fitted instead.




Are the forcing cones on a factory 3.5" gun longer than the cones on a 3" gun? I dont see that info anywhere. I was under the impression that they were both the same, with the 3.5" obviously having a longer chamber.. Right around 5/8". Because if the are the same length the resistance will be the same and there will be no advantage there, especially with the rough damn cones that remington produces.

Many of the new shotguns advertise longer forcing cones as a method of reducing recoil in their shotguns.. see Beretta and Benelli. Where the difference lies is when chambering the 3 inch shells in the 3.5 chambers... there is an extra half inch... aught aught carry the aught... Hows your Math Jethro.
I said in the beginning 3 inch shells in a 3.5 chamber compared to 3 inch shells in a 3 inch chamber.... The longer the forcing cone the less abruptly the shot is compressed and the less concentrated is the initial pressure

I am just funin with ya GT

 

[gth]

Many of the new shotguns advertise longer forcing cones as a method of reducing recoil in their shotguns.. see Beretta and Benelli. Where the difference lies is when chambering the 3 inch shells in the 3.5 chambers... there is an extra half inch... aught aught carry the aught... Hows your Math Jethro.

I get that, the more gradual the load is compressed that it could reduce recoil. (whether it enough to notice is a different story ) But do you think the manufacturers make a barrel with a 2" forcing cone in the 3.5" gun but only use a .5" forcing cone in a 3" gun. I dont know for sure, but I find it hard to believe. I imagine its just advertised for the 3.5" gun as a recoil reducing selling point. Therefore the recoil should be the same regardless of the chamber length because simply having a longer chamber doesn't affect how gradually the load is compressed to the barrel diameter.

I said in the beginning 3 inch shells in a 3.5 chamber compared to 3 inch shells in a 3 inch chamber.... The longer the forcing cone the less abruptly the shot is compressed and the less concentrated is the initial pressure

I am just funin with ya GT

Longer chambers do not mean longer forcing cones. It just means the 3" payload has a longer running start at the 3.5" cones.



What the hell was the original question anyways.........

 

[lcq]

My 935 is overbored to 10g diameter. They claim it reduces recoil and patterns better because of the reduced shot column. Having never shot any other 3 /2" I was expecting to be hammered real good. I was quite surprised at how little it kicks. Perhaps there is something to this backboring and overboring.

Brian

 

[LeePeterson]

My 935 is overbored to 10g diameter. They claim it reduces recoil and patterns better because of the reduced shot column. Having never shot any other 3 /2" I was expecting to be hammered real good. I was quite surprised at how little it kicks. Perhaps there is something to this backboring and overboring.

Brian

Make sure you pattern that gun for sure. Some shells the wads won't seal so you get LOW velocity and really blown patterns. But when you have wads that seal you get velocities about 25-60FPS faster then in regular bores, becuase of less friction.

Kent Fast steel 3 1/2" BB and #1 use CSD wads and they seal.
I'm just waiting for Kent to load that 1625FPs load in #3 shot. With the 935 you would probably get close to 1650+FPS. They already load it in BB and #2.