Why aren't ALL 12 gauge shotguns chambered in 3.5"?

Eddie Honda

Eddie Honda

Regular
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
Val Verde
I've been wondering something...

A 12 gauge supermag can shoot 2.75", 3", and 3.5" shells. Most regular shotguns can only handle up to 3".

Why would you make a shotgun that can't handle the bigger shells? I mean, if a supermag can cycle 2.75" to 3" shells like they're all the same, what's the point of building a shotgun that can't?

For example, say you designed a dash-mounted cup holder for your truck that could hold small, medium, and large slurpees. Why would you then install one that could only hold small and medium slurpees instead? Why would you limit yourself for no reason?

It's somewhat of a safety issue too. If you're using a supermag, there's no chance you might accidentally load a round that's too long and cause the barrel to explode in your face.

Is there any loss of performance when you shoot smaller shells out of a supermag? There's probably a reason for all this, I just can't think of what it might be...
 
Part of might be that 3.5" shells weren't introduced since recently. A lot of older shotguns are only chambered in 2.75".

My take is it might be a cost thing too. Stronger more expensive materials are needed to manufacture a barrel capable of handling 3.5" pressures so to keep cost down, and because 3" is perfectly fine for 95% of applications, they simply make 3" chambers.

My $0.02
 
could you imagine shooting cottontails with a 3.5"

Some people dont NEED a 3.5 so why pay for all the stuff involved to make a gun able shoot the 3.5
 
The cost issue makes sense. What about the physics of it though?

The position of the forcing cone in a 3.5" barrel would be different than that of a 3" or 2.75" barrel. Would this make a marginal difference in performance? Would a 2.75" sabot slug be destabilized in some way if you shot it out of a 3.5" barrel?
 
The 3 1/2" 12 gauge has only been around since the late 80's it was introduced so that 12 gauge steel loads could come closer to matching the lead loads wich had just been outlawed for waterfowl in the USA. Of course at that is time everyone was trying to throw massive loads of large size shot at lead like velocities to recreate lead's effectiveness. With todays fast steel loads 3 1/2" guns aren't as needed but its still a marketing ploy after all they payed for that expensive machinery to make them in the first place.

As far as forcing cones having an impact on shorter sabotted slugs, I'd think if there was any truth to that you'd find way more 3 1/2" slug loads since every shotgun manufacturer seems to make rifled 3 1/2" guns.
 
Might as well get a 10 bore than shoot 3.5" shells in 12 gauge. Patterns better too I hear.

Plus people have been gettin' her done with 2.75" shells for ages, so it's probably just gimmick. 3" shell would probably add the extra power if needed. 3.5" is probably too much power and costs too much.
 
3-1/2" shotguns also require a longer receiver, which makes for a heavier gun that doesn't handle as well. Even with a double, you would want the gun to be built heavier to make the recoil bearable.
 
Maybe guns designed for the 3.5 are just just too heavy or not the preference for everyone? Maybe some auto guns designed for the 3.5 are not only too heavy but will not cycle the lightest 2 3/4 loads? Since the 3.5 option often costs slightly more it may be an option that not everyone wishes to pay for.
 
cdngunner said:
could you imagine shooting cottontails with a 3.5"

Some people dont NEED a 3.5 so why pay for all the stuff involved to make a gun able shoot the 3.5
Click to expand...

+1. Not everybody is using their shotgun for pass shooting geese. For upland game, a light 12ga load of fine shot is all that is needed. Also, as noted, many older guns are chambered for 2-3/4" because that is all there was for many years.

Mark
 
I personally say in practicality that having a shotgun that uses 3.5 but can handle anything else is a much better buy if you can swallow the cost, especially in the long run. If you can imagine, who knows, you might be out for rabbit in deer season, have your deer tag and Bambi desides to cross your path. That extra .5 can always help. My 2 coppers.
 
Most folks I know that bought a 3 1/2 shoot only 3 inch or put them up for sale after about a year. Alot of guys by the 3.5 and go out and buy cheap slow ammow for it and are dissapointed with the results. With steel shot --- speed kills, so buy premium ammo.
Cheers.
 
Drachenblut said:
If you can imagine, who knows, you might be out for rabbit in deer season, have your deer tag and Bambi desides to cross your path. That extra .5 can always help. My 2 coppers.
Click to expand...

A 12ga (or 20ga for that matter) 2 3/4in slug out of a smoothbore will easily drop that deer inside 50 yards +/- provided the shooter does his/her part ;).
 
Why would you make a shotgun that can't handle the bigger shells? I mean, if a supermag can cycle 2.75" to 3" shells like they're all the same, what's the point of building a shotgun that can't?

For the same reason you can buy a car that has cloth seats instead of leather or a 6 cylinder instead of an 8.

It costs less.
 
looch said:
Why don't all hammers weigh 10lbs?
Click to expand...

When you put it that way, I feel kinda stupid for asking in the first place... :redface:

But really, all we're talking about here is a an extra half inch or so on the receiver to accommodate the longer ejection port and a longer forcing cone in the barrel, as well as being built to handle the added pressure. If you look at the specs, they only seem to weigh slightly more than a regular shotgun. Doesn't seem like that much of a trade off for the added versatility of being able to put whatever the hell you want through it, know what I mean?

If I had to choose between an 870 express and an 870 super magnum, I don't see any particular advantage in getting the non-supermag, besides maybe saving a couple of dollars. Why not get the one that does it all?
 
The better question is why even maake 3.5 inch shells. Cmon do you really need a 3.5 inch. A 3 inch will do the job in most applications. There is no need it is just preference, so the manufacturers give people the option. I know I don't need 3.5 inch so I wouldn't bother. Looch has it right. You can hammer thumb tacks with a 10 lb sledge hammer so why bother making a tack hammer right? Cmon.
 
I was a skeptic of 3.5 until I went on a goose hunt this fall with 2 guys shooting 3.5. I was shooting 3 inch. I won't go into details about some of the shots these guys made but those geese were hit hard. I'm sold on 3.5 and will be getting one for sure next season.
 
the 3 1/2" receiver is longer, and so is the pump stroke.

90% of what i shoot is 2 3/4", and about another 9% is 3".... i dont see the need to lug around a longer/heavier receiver with a longer pump stroke for that remaining 1% of the time.
i dont hunt waterfowl and dont intend to unless im retired and really bored. laying in/wading in ice cold muck isnt my idea of fun :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom