Shotgun Forum banner
  • Whether you're a greenhorn or a seasoned veteran, your collection's next piece is at Bass Pro Shops. Shop Now.

    Advertisement
61 - 80 of 134 Posts
Yeah, Dan, you're right. But some of us, for some strange reason, enjoy the technical stuff and science almost as much as the sport. And love to debate it, obviously.

BTW, the first time I ever heard of pickles and peanut butter was in NE. They also had a peanut butter and bacon sandwich in a vending machine at Offutt AFB - never tried that one.

Always enjoy your posts.

W
 
m_lang said:
Randy, apparently you didnt see where I was from? That 53 yard pattern is maybe ok for straight aways which it seems you shoot alot, got a good dog you would expect that. My complaint on this whole thing is you were shooting an extra full choke with a 3" magnum load.. correct? This pattern doesnt mean nothing because you yourself said noone going to shoot .040-.045 choke including yourself..so why even post this? I think you should shoot the same load thru your a-5 mag 20, I bet you will have same or better pattern with lesser choke(unless its choked ic). Oh by the way I do shoot a .042 fixed choked gun...its called Sweet Sixteen. Good hunting Randy and Merry Christmas!
The choke used in the posted pattern is a .030 inch constriction; not a particularly aggressive choke but that specific shell has a FliteControl wad. It takes a bit more nudging to get things to change with a FC wad, to be sure. A story for another day; it sure didn't work out that way with "Prairie Storm" incarnation. The "M2 birds" taken on the video used a Trulock Precision Hunter "Modified" extended choke . . . a .015 inch constriction.

Image


Previously, eight different twenty gauge shotshells were given a rough pattern comparison at a laser-verified forty yards. All shells were fired out of a six pound, 24 inch barrel, Benelli M2 20 Comfortech autoloader. All shells were compared using the same "modified" Trulock Precision Hunter Extended choke tube with an exit diameter of .605 inches. The barrel of this Benelli M2 mics at an inside diameter of .620 inches, so this is a .015 in. constriction choke, in this individual gun.

There are enough pattern example images with enough shells, on my website and elsewhere, printed incrementally from 35 - 60 yards to please or displease most everyone. Change the specific shell or the gun, it can all change abruptly. Buffered loads, harder shot, more consistent shot, more spherical shot, moderate velocities . . . a little constriction can go a very long way.

I'm not above using a 12 gauge by any means; but that wasn't the question. The variety of loads currently available for the twenty gauge up to 1-1/2 oz. payloads in a broad spectrum of shot types is currently what gives it the appeal. There is no particular aversion to the 16 gauge; I had a stable of seven A-5 Sweet Sixteens at one time, along with a pair of cheap but good Winchester Model 24 16 gauges from the early 1950s. Double triggers, extractors, but they fit me well and they were not at all pricey to pick up.
 
wjonessc said:
Yeah, Dan, you're right. But some of us, for some strange reason, enjoy the technical stuff and science almost as much as the sport. And love to debate it, obviously.

BTW, the first time I ever heard of pickles and peanut butter was in NE. They also had a peanut butter and bacon sandwich in a vending machine at Offutt AFB - never tried that one.

Always enjoy your posts.

W
NE was the first place I had that sandwich as well. I graduated high school an hour south of Omaha.

" The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well." R.W.E.
 
uplanddan,
I agree, you are right. Randy makes a good argument that you can get highly specialized, highly geeked up loads in a 3" 20 ga. that will kill at 60 yds. (not to mention very expensive). Do you really want to shoot 1.5 oz. loads in a 6 lb. 20 ga.? What happens to the bird that gets up at 35 yds. when you are loaded with a turkey load tailored for 65 yd. shots? It truely is like trying to put wings on a frog. A 20 ga. is a much better gun w/ 7/8 to 1 oz. of shot & anything a 20 will do, your 16 will do better.
Also, putting effectiveness of the loads aside, it would be extremely difficult to find a gun that is better balanced & that points or handles better than a good SXS or OU 12 ga. A good 12 ga. will kill the same birds with ordinary field ammo., just as far as your high dollar golden frog junk.
I will stick to my 12 ga. for wild winter pheasant but I would love to have a nice SXS 16 ga. Should a 3" 20 ga. strike your fancy, by all means buy one. Me myself & I have no desire or need to own one. I would love to own the Merkel that comes with two sets of bbls, one 20 ga. & one 16 ga. Can't recall the model no. but as long as it has two bbls & two triggers, I will shoot it. You can rest assured that as long as I own it, no 3" 20 ga. ammo. would be fired in it. If I can't kill it w/ 1 oz. of nice shot, that tells me I need a bigger gun, or am I all wrong? Should I start working on tungsten super shot loads for my .410?
 
Wasn't it you, Randy, who said that it's not about what was written 60 years ago? Have you ever bothered to measure the vital area of a pheasant, or anything else? It really isn't that difficult. Freeze the bird and saw it in half. then take measurements of the vital organs. Lowry and the others, in the Nilo and Patuxtant tests (the basis for these numbers) used flawed methods for measuting the vital areas. They used the location of entrance wounds instead of the actual cross section of the vitals. They also included the major flight bones, the air passages and the gut, all of which will lead to a merry chase if that is all that is hit. Lung shoot a pheasant, and he'll sail off a couple of hundred yards at least.

And Burrard was WAAAAAY off base in his estimations! There were a lot of things that Burrard did not really understand as well as he thought he did, so he basically put together some numbers that he thought worked. Even still, with his overestimation of the vital area of a pheasant, he recommended a pattern containing 120 well distributed pellets. (the key there is "well distributed")

There is quite a bit of work out there in relation to this. The more recent ones, particularly in the last 20 or so years, seem to contradict Lowry, Burrard, et al. Cochrane, who actually did the post mortum analysis on the Nilo birds was at odds with Lowry's predetermined findings form the beginning. And his report contained some subtle differences as to the definition of "vital" (i.e. vital to flight vs vital to life). In fact, Lowry defines the vital area as the combination of the "Highly Vulnerable Area" (HVA) and the "Less Vulnerable Area" (LVA). The LVA will likely eventually cause the death of the bird, but pellet strikes in this area alone makes for a very questionable retrieval ratio. Basically (very basically) it is the difference between Roster's B1 and B3 conditions.

Frank
 
Frank Lopez said:
Lowry and the others, in the Nilo and Patuxtant tests (the basis for these numbers) used flawed methods for measuting the vital areas.
Not exactly. What you have is different methods used that arrive at the same result. The distinction is between "vital-highly critical" and "lethal." The pseudo-debate wasn't about pheasants, but game farm mallards. The Nilo work used a larger kill zone, but more pellet hits. It wasn't anecdotal or survey-based: they killed thousands of mallards.

If you use the torso notion of hits, you end up with the 3-4 hits suggested on average. If you use not just lethal, but "instantly lethal" or truly vital hits . . . you need only one pellet, or a 99.9% chance of a one pellet "very quickly lethal" hit. You still arrive at approximately the same pattern density.
 
Actually Lowrey used a method to insure the birds were centered in the pattern. At 60 yards his results with a 1 1/2oz load with a 87% 40 yard pattern showed about 77% kill rate. In other word 2 out of 4 birds will be crippled. Compare that load to a 20ga 3" 1 1/4 oz load and you will get a lower kill ratio. So even if one is a disciple of Lowrey's, 60 yards is quite a stretch for a field gun.
Very few people truly look at a pattern. Most are happy seeing what is inside a 30" circle and calling a 70% pattern a full choke. The Germans developed the Berlin Wansee method, and a common method used now is the 20" circle drawn inside the 30" circle. These exploit Lowreys findings that a pattern follows a bell curve or normal distribution in density from the center to the outer area. If a CONSEP table shows a MINIMUM of 114 hits in actuality you CANNOT divide the 114 by 707 to get an average hit of i out of 62.". 2/3 of that pattern will be closest to the center area. When I have developed loads, most recently my ITX loads I noticed that for a modified choke I was getting roughly 2/3 of the pattern inside a 21" circle, which is what one would expect from other research. 2/3 of 114 is about 76 pellets which divided by half the area of a 21" circle(about 350 sq inches comes to an average hit of 1 per 4.6 square inches. As you near the center the shot concentration becomes greater so even that is misleading. A full choke will likely thicken to more like 70% or greater. Higher pressure loads as found in a 20 ga tend to show less thickening.
I have not ahd much problem with Lowrey's findings, but some do not know how to interpret them. When he wrote on pattern patchiness he obvioulsy was given a charge by John Olin and decided to follow the old saw about IF you cannot dazzle with brilliance baffle with ..... Roster has yeilded some interesting data on his study's but I have found, based on my experience as a grad student where I was involved in doing research, that he may have some questionable controls.
Burrand was not faced so much with longer range issues as the "square shot" theory where the English were loading 12 bores with very light charges of shot as they would "pattern better" With soft shot there is some basis to it, but as with anything there is a limit. A 7/8 oz shot charge is about as good as you can get out of a 20 bore and you will likely get little improvement going to a larger bore.
Like Geometric I find very limited use of long range loads in the field. I have too many times sacrificed more close birds than long ones using a full choke and tight patterning loads. They are easier to miss with and can cripple when not centered on the bird (ever seen a straffed bird keep flying when feathers fly off its back?) and will hamburger them if centered. My success rate in the duck blind over decoys is greater with a modified choke. Most that have success at very long range over 50 yards use some very sophisticate shot charges and usually some heavy loads. That 87% XX load used in the Olin test is a good example.

DP
 
It wasn't Lowry personally; it was several studies from US Fish & Wildlife, Olin Research, etc. Several wildlife biologists were involved; it was a team effort. Subsequent studies have been published in the Wildlife Monographs from http://www.wildlifejournals.org/view/index.html: they are all still available. The most exhaustive pattern analysis to date is from Andrew Jones, easily: http://www.shotgun-insight.com/books.html.

Everyone seems to forget the series of VHS videos from 1987, starring Tom Roster. In "Pass Shooting Demonstrations and Techniques," Mr. Roster is dropping geese at 70 - 75 yards, with steel shotshell loads-- loads that according to Delta Waterfowl in 2005, are insufficient to kill a duck at 35 yards.

These things come in reasonable generalities, not exactitudes.
 
One of the issues that enter in also involves a certain amount of technique. I once met an old gentlemean that shot a 10 ga 3 1/2" and used 2 oz of 6's on geese. He was successful in taht his target was not the goose but the goose head. Throwing up 450 pellets out of a full choke at a goose head may have been quite effective. Know another individual that likes steel 5's and does the same thing.
Pass shooting offers that opportunity as compared to upland where the head is not always offered. Crossing shots make for easier kills than oblique shots. Also, there are retrievable hits and lethal hits. I have broken the wing and broken a leg on pheasants and found them still pretty much alive but too disabled to go anywhere.
Many people like to take Roster's studies and use them out of context. One writer wrote a learned discussion based on Roster,s study where he determined the average range a duck and goose were shot. First, not all ducks were shot at 38 yards or geese at 50. No variance was really given to determine standard deviation. Also the study was only valid in the location and time of year it was executed. It provides a set of data that is not worthless but hardly one that can be used like the Bible. His other study in South Dakota, where people concluded that steel 2's were more lethal than 4's. After reviewing the study I feel he proved that if you use 1oz 20 ga mag loads in Tim Buk Tu South Dakota at a certain time of the season you will have trouble with about 1 out of 7 birds you shoot. The differences between 2's and 4's were of questionable significance based on the controls of the study. Kind of like doing a study to see if a 50cent piece is more biased to give heads than a quarter. As a construct you have to do each an even number of times as there are two possible outcomes, heads or tails. If you keep track and flip one 20 times and the other 19 you will have a 5% bias based on improper construct. % results often reflect that in studies. I have never seen a T test where they subject the study to a probability anyalysis to see at what level it is due to chance. Also I doubt if Roster himslef generalizes as much as the readers of his work do, like the SDDNR.
Lowrey was a very solid researcher and did not use the subjective levels of anaylsis many of the other studies often use. I prefer not to be too critical of hard work as like Joe Hunter does in his patterning because I feel it is more important to have the work than to be overcritical of technique.

DP
 
The people testing steel shot in the early days of it's development had an agenda. They were trying to prove steel shot was as good or better than lead. I don't think they lied but it is obvious they made every effort to show steel in the best possible light. There is only so much to know about pattern testing. Knowledge is always good & more is better but there isn't much we know today we didn't know 100 years ago. Sure, hard shot, buffer, & quality shot improves the effectiveness of a load. Nobody will argue that point. Comparing steel to lead is like comparing popcorn to tungsten. I know Tom Roster & have talked to him at length. He may not remember me as I assume he talks to a lot of people but I remember what he said & learned a lot from him. I have recommended his load data & services on here many times. You have the tests, the analysis & the interpretation of the tests & the analysis. People have an amazing ability to read what they want to see in a test/ analysis. Sure, you can kill a goose with steel as far as you can put enough pellets with enough energy on target. That requires big pellets at extended range. I have shot geese next to people shooting steel many times & have seen steel actually bounce off the birds. You could see the feathers move & hear the shot hit! Every goose killed that morning was killed with bismuth or some type of tungsten shot. Maybe it would have been better to come back another day when the geese would decoy but after driving 1800 miles to shoot geese, we wanted to make the best of it. Nobody was shooting a 20 ga. for obvious reasons & you rarely see a 20 ga. pheasant hunting in N. Dakota, although they work fine within their effective range.
In hindsight, that goose hunt may have been a good application for Mr. Randy's 3" 20 ga. shooting high density tungsten shot. I am sure it would have been much more effective than steel, that is if you could hit one at 70 yds. with a 6 pound gun with a 24" bbl. Most folks can't hit one that far with a heavy 12 or 10 with a 32" bbl. The longer bbl. doesn't shoot harder or kill farther (for practical purposes anyway) but it does have a much greater sighting plane & much improved handling qualities for pass shooting.
 
What was the original question? Oh, yeah,

WisClays said:
My question re: SXS is; what gauge is best for pheasant, 16 or 20? I was thinking 16 ga as I believe it has a bigger fudge factor for someone new to pheasants.

I've looked at new and used AYA no.2 sidelocks. From what I've read they are a really good gun for the money and like my 725 a good midpoint as far as price/quality, although the AYA is nearly twice the cost new.

One more question. Is fit the same with a field gun SXS as it is with my Sporting clays gun? the AYA seems very slim and the lop seems short although from the numbers isn't I comparison.
Regarding the best gauge, it actually is the 12ga. The 12 is the most versitile and can be had in weights only slightly heavier than the 20 or the 16. The range of available loads is without equal amoung the different gauges. And there are some very good loads designed specifically for pheasant. As an aside, pheasant actually present some unique issues among gamebirds with respect to penetration, featherballing being the main one. There is a romance to the 16, to be sure, and there is something to be said about hunting with a classic gauge. But the reality is that the ballistic parade passed the 16ga by. The advancements that were made in the moree popular bores just weren't applied to the 16. You can develop some very good loadings by reloading, but that is a whole other issue.

I've always believed that you should select the payload you need based on the probability of the range you will be shooting. So, it follows that you should select the bore size based on what load you'll likely be shooting. Inside of about 35 yards, the 28 will kill pheasant about as well as any other if you put the pattern on them. If 40 yards is your limit, the 20ga will work. 50, and you,ll find a 16 more suitable and beyond that the 12.

Regarding the AyA No.2. A fine gun, to be sure. But there are alternatives. If you want to stay with the Basque guns, have a look at the Ugartechea Grade IV. It's probably 95% the gun that the AyA is, but it costs about $2k less. And, you'll never notice the difference. On the used market, the BSS and the Beretta are good, reliable guns, as are the Merkles.

As far as fit, all guns are individuals. You need to try them to be sure. Or, if you are buying through the mails, you need to know the numbers before hand.

A well made SxS will last a lifetime. What I wouldn't do is to feed a lightweight game gun a steady diet of heavy loads. Especially the Basque guns.

Frank
 
Bryan Lee said:
Ah yes, the old boxlock vs. sidelock, and is one better than the other? I'll try to not get long winded in my reply.

First off, No shotgun ever killed more game or killed it more easily because it was one action or the other.

Historically the sidelock has always been considered the "higher quality" of the two guns and are priced accordingly. This is because sidelock actions require more extensive "bench time" when they are built. Neither action in a side by side lends itself to being easily mass produced, but the boxlock is considered to be the easier of the two.
From a practical perspective, the boxlock has a huge advantage in the long run for a hunting gun shooting heavier loads, since the stock isn't inletted to fit the locks. Thats why you see so many L.C smiths with cracked stocks, and the other american boxlocks tend to be a bit more durable.
 
Good point Frank. As far as a boxlock having a huge advantage over a sidelock? That is a fignewton of somebodies imagination. Either will last a couple lifetimes with a reasonable amount of care. I have been shooting Elsies since the1950's & still shoot Dads old lite weight smith. It happens to be the first gun I ever fired & the gun I killed my first bird on the wing with in 1950 something in Taiwan. I still shoot it today. I have also shot many loads in the heavier weight smiths. Much hotter than I should have shot & hotter than I would shoot again. (the ignorant teenager thing) I have yet to have a failure w/ a Elsie stock. Yes, I know it happens.
 
http://www.doublegunshop.com
geometric said:
Good point Frank. As far as a boxlock having a huge advantage over a sidelock? That is a fignewton of somebodies imagination. Either will last a couple lifetimes with a reasonable amount of care. I have been shooting Elsies since the1950's & still shoot Dads old lite weight smith. It happens to be the first gun I ever fired & the gun I killed my first bird on the wing with in 1950 something in Taiwan. I still shoot it today. I have also shot many loads in the heavier weight smiths. Much hotter than I should have shot & hotter than I would shoot again. (the ignorant teenager thing) I have yet to have a failure w/ a Elsie stock. Yes, I know it happens.
There are some really good gunsmiths that disagree. Side locks have less wood than box locks, and once the wood deteriourates the locks will start to wear. Its an unavoidable fact.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubb ... 659&page=1
 
Yea, probably true if the wood is truely deteriorated but unless it is deteriorated, a good stock can last a 100 years or so. Randy, I really didn't mean to alienate you as a valuable asset. I value your opinion and you make some good points. You back up your opinion with examples and fact, which is a sign of somebody that knows what they are talking about. I didn't mean to be a AH, but we all get carried away at times. We differ in opinion at times but that is O.K.
 
The original poster, already apparently familiar with his 725 Sporter, can buy absolutely nothing and take all the preserve pheasants he wants with a 1 oz. or 1-1/8 oz. of hard #6 shot with a fairly light constriction choke. Comfort level means a lot; no specialized equipment is requisite for shooting preserve pheasants. Pheasants don't care how your barrel or barrels are affixed to a stock and all-out longevity or durability of any action really does not apply to preserve shooting.

Whether someone likes side by sides or not is a personal matter. I shot my first pheasant with a low-end Crescent .410 SxS with a cut-down stock. It was what was available back then and I was happy to be hunting with my father and grandfather back then. I had a BSS 12 gauge that I hit well with, a couple of Model 24 16 gauges that were cheap but good, and a beautiful Winchester Model 23 Pigeon Grade that was as far away from fitting me as could be imagined. There was also an older Fox 20 gauge that fit me horribly and a couple of SKBs that were far better.

It isn't about brand name of gun, brand name of ammo, it isn't about reloading, and it isn't about exotica. Any number of buffered #5 1-1/4 - 1-5/16 oz. 20 gauge loads, readily available, are supremely effective on wild pheasants. All anyone has to do is pattern them and it is self-evident. There are far more 20 gauge loads (and shotguns) to choose from than the 16 gauge; the 16 gauge choices dwindle every year. A shame that it was the 20 that got the extra 1/4 inch of unfolded length hull; for a 3 inch 16 would have been a better platform with steel due to the better case capacity. It wasn't my idea and mandated use of soft iron shot wasn't anticipated well in 1954. There is no reason to obsess over a hole in the barrel; the issue is the abandonment of 16 gauge hunting load development. It is the way it is.

If you are blocking or "on post duty" driving large tracts, you may well want 1-7/8 oz. buffered #4s out of a 12 gauge. No question, one of the better longer range loads and not something available out of a 16 or a 20.

This time of year, I'll walk 5 miles between shots, the dog runs 25 miles between shots, and anything above a 6 - 6-1/4 lb. twenty ga. autoloader is just exactly what I don't want. Obviously, this preference is not universally held, nor would I ever expect it to be. By now, the really dumb pheasants are all already in the freezer, the smart ones run immediately with very little coaxing. Yesterday was as good an example as anything-- unseasonably warm and windy. When a nervous rooster hits the air at 40 yards you need to take him very, very quickly . . . or, you can just color him gone. Seemingly "fast" guns can seem a clear notch slower under these field conditions.
 
As a rifleman I have enjoyed the discussions of the subtle differences between calibers. I own 3 deer rifles and should just shoot one like my unsophisticated daughter does who shot a nicer deer than I did this year. In shotguns we tend to be more practical. I once bought a 12 ga Benelli Monefeldro because I felt that it would be the ideal "one gun for me" It likely is, but one gun is no fun.
Randy just described a reason we settle on a favorite gun that works for us. Under his conditions I would possibly carry my Benelli as it is a light weight gun and I shoot it fairly well (they came with shims to adjust the stock) My ugly Stevens 311 16 ga does the same for me and I enjoy it more now that I have a supply of ITX and have developed a load (somewhere I need to engrave that load in stone tablets as I am beyond the point of developing loads over chronographs and pattern sheets) I even bought another 7 pounds of shot to have an increased supply. The gun was a also a real riot on jump shooting wood ducks this year which is like upland hunting. I have a more "practical" 12 double that I put slings on, but still enjoy the 16 as a gun. Geometric touched on the magnum issue. I can handload my 16 to a slightly better performance level than any 20 ga 3" I have seen (the 3" 20 is always called "just as good". He can handload a 10 ga to any performance level exceeding a 3" 12 and probably even a 3 1/2" 12. Mnay of the good ones are now a hanloading proposition which is unfortunate. If a 20 ga were made on a true 20 ga frame and made just for the 7/8 and 1oz loads it would be a gem in the grouse woods. At one time a few 12's were made for the uplands that were advertised as not to be recommended for use above 1 1/4 oz and probably for the live pidgeon load at 1 1/4 oz. Unfortunately these guns are not popular and rare as everyone has to buy either a 12 or a 20 with a 3" chamber. The old "field load" for a 12 was 1 1/8oz at 1255 which is a 16 ga load and a light 12 using these loads was a gem in the uplands, or the live pidgeon load at 1 1/4 at 1220. I had a couple of these and traded them off. One because the bores were chrome lines and for some obscure reason was choked M/F and another was an O/U with non selective barrels and I thought I should have selective barrels. That O/U was grouse gun supreme and I still kick myself for getting rid of it, but then again I have this urge to experiment and a psychotic compulsion to buy new guns.
Once the 14 ga existed and was used on hammer guns as it permitted use of a healthy shot charge and had less reach to activate the hammers. 28 ga users are constantly arguing about the effectiveness of their guns. Look at how much more fun we would have with a larger variety of gauges and choice :)
 
It is worse, far worse, with rifles where the mantra has long been, "when all else fails, invent a caliber."

Peculiarly, perhaps weirdly, anything with a smaller bore than a 12 gauge is called a "sub-gauge." Really dumb, as a 12 gauge is a subgauge compared to a 10 gauge.

The std. U.S. Military cartridge at one time was the .45-70 Government. Yet, the .30-06 has never been a "sub-caliber." The 7mms have never been called sub-calibers either. Even though being sub something is often denigrating and a way of expressing inferiority, as in subhuman, etc. What is better, the .323 Super Snorter or the 577 Tyrannosaur?

In handguns, why isn't the .40 S & W a sub-caliber? :roll: It sure is compared to the standard .45, but handguns as well have escaped this small part of nonsense, why adding a their own version of jargonized silliness.

In shotguns, with of myth of "patterns better." Almost as good is the notion of "inherent accuracy" in rifles. What do you want, a rifle that shoots the tightest groups for you, or another that doesn't . . . yet fires a cartridge more inherently accurate?
 
Well, like they say, "different strokes for different folks". Wild pheasant are the only kind I shoot. I wouldn't want to tote a 10 lb. gun around all day but if I walk all day to get a shot or two at pheasant, I want to shoot something I can kill the birds with. I invariably get the job of cutting off the birds that are excapeing the drive. I think it is because they rarely get past me. Blocker or whatever they call it. Same way we hunt deer down here at times. It is now getting to a point most deer hunters can't kill a deer in a area full of deer without a pile of corn but that is a different story. I guess I should practice what I preach. I have often made the statement,"never try to tell somebody else what to shoot". You are wasting your breath as they aint going to listen anyway. Dad was an exceptionally good shot, at least the army thought so as they gave him most every marksmanship badge they had. Talk about heavy, his A5 Browning should have come with wheels. Dad was deadly with the A5, but then he could shoot anything. I couldn't stand in a barn & shoot it out the door but give me a good balanced SXS & I can do pretty good. 3" 16 ga.?, you gotta be kidding. If you gave me a auto in any gauge, I would never shoot it but I would love to have a nice SXS 16 & I really couldn't care less how popular it is or what other people shoot. A 16 loaded w/ 1 1/8oz. #5 or #6 is a great pheasant gun. Please understand that I am not saying you shouldn't shoot one (a auto). They work for some folks but they don't work for me. I can kill a pheasant as far as anybody has any business shooting at one w/ 1.25 oz. of lead 5's in my Merkel. The closer in birds usually get shot w/ 1 1/8 oz. #6 out of the rt. bbl. That is what works for me. I have also killed a bunch of wild pheasant with the 1 1/8 oz. load of #6's in the 2.75" 20 ga. Never had a problem with it but I would shoot the one ounce load if I had it to do over again. It is a better load but neither is a good load over 40 yds. The birds were shot at 30 or 35 yds. for the most part, that is why I was shooting a gun w/ 26" bbls. bored IC & MOD.
 
In rifles and shotguns I think we have developed a golf club mentality where we should have the right gun for different situations. Comes from daydreaming in the easy chair. Kind of like the screw in chokes. If I could freeze the bird in the air until I could either grab the right gun out of my gun bag, change loads or at least get a chance to screw in the perfect choke I would be set.
Randy was referring to the no-tox necessities for a 3" 16. For steel a 3" 16 could possibly handle up to 1 1/8 oz. Don Zutz one time commented on the issue of balancing wieght to gauge. His comment paraphrased "Why carry a lightweight gun all day that is hard to hit with and blow the one shot you get" For that reason I have installed sling studs on almost all my shotguns. I have been in the situation Randy was referring to and at one time carried a Mossberg 500 pump loaded with a 1 1/2oz 12ga handload of copper 4's. I was younger then and now the area is no-tox only. I admit that I can shoot an autoloader or a pump gun more accurately than a light weight "upland" SXS. His choice, combined with the fact that he prefers factory shells makes sense to me. The 16 is a handloaders proposition. I handload so I can get its potential. Also about the time I carry a full choked heavy loaded 12 bore a pheasant gets up at 28 ga range. In theory you should carry a full choke and let them get their range when close. I grew up hunting grouse and get a little impatient.
The SXS is really an obsolete design that remains because of nostalgia. They can now laser regulate them but I had one that was not and consistantly missed with one barrel before I tested it for point of aim. I did not have it long. The O/U is really a better choice as is indicated in the shooting games, the autolaoder is a remarkable machine, and pumps do really well for me at a modest price. I still buy and use SXS's. But then I also build muzzle loaders.

DP
 
61 - 80 of 134 Posts