Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 114 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,383 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
On Friday I made my first triple on Geese in several years. I used 2 3/4" Hevi Shot, 1 1/4oz #2 @1300 fps. Boom, boom, boom....dead in the air. Who needs those Roman Candles anyway....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,305 Posts
Not I. I don't like getting punched even by 1-1/8 at 1200. I don't even want to think about something silly like 2-1/2 at 1500. Silly. Overkill. Unnecessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,702 Posts
Someone who will shoot at a goose that's 75 yards away. It will help him a lot more than it'll help me.

BT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
i use it for geese because 3.5 inch steel is a hell of a lot cheaper than 2.75 inch hevishot or anything else.

i'm a poor highschool senior trying to go to college. i can get steel loads for under 15 bucks and its killd geese better than a 3 inch load
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
I would love to shoot hevi-shot or one of the heavier non-toxics when I duck hunt this year, but at $2+ per shot I can't afford it. I won't say most, but duck hunters like me can't fully utilize the benifits of the 3.5" steel shells vs. and 3" steel shell. I can't hit much beyond 40 yards or so, and their are many 3" steel loads that are capable of killing ducks out to that range. So personally, unless I'm shooting at geese I don't use 3.5" shells. For hunters that are better shots and can take the longer shot, or need the extra energy (for geese or later in the season), 3.5" shells can increase the payload and FPS, which in the case you can get one of the 3.5" loads to pattern, can be worth the extra cost and punishment on your shoulder with the extra pellets and range that is gained when shooting steel.

But obviously, hevi-shot, Remington HD, or one of the other non-toxics is a better choice then steel if money is not an issue...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
NCShotgunner said:
But obviously, hevi-shot, Remington HD, or one of the other non-toxics is a better choice then steel if money is not an issue...
If money is not an issue, get a 10 ga. You will never look back. If money is an issue, you can reload 10x3.5 for about the same as you can 12x3.5 and have less shot in contact with the barrel, in a much easier shooting gun. Everyone I have ever known to switch from 12 to ten says the same thing: I can't get over how easy that gun is to shoot. If I had known that I would have made the switch years ago. Remember, you can put more steel in a 10 ***** case than you can in a twelve, or have a softer shooting wad column for the same load.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
655 Posts
Spacegold said:
NCShotgunner said:
But obviously, hevi-shot, Remington HD, or one of the other non-toxics is a better choice then steel if money is not an issue...
If money is not an issue, get a 10 ga. You will never look back. If money is an issue, you can reload 10x3.5 for about the same as you can 12x3.5 and have less shot in contact with the barrel, in a much easier shooting gun. Everyone I have ever known to switch from 12 to ten says the same thing: I can't get over how easy that gun is to shoot. If I had known that I would have made the switch years ago. Remember, you can put more steel in a 10 ***** case than you can in a twelve, or have a softer shooting wad column for the same load.
Good point about the 10ga but if you've ever done any steel reloading on 3.5" 12ga loads they are a real pain and take a lot of time. If the 10ga take the same amount of time I'd say it's hardly worth it from a time standpoint. I'd rather just buy my shells...but then you run into the fact that 10ga shells are more expensive...hard to win either way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,098 Posts
Spacegold wrote:
If money is an issue, you can reload 10x3.5 for about the same as you can 12x3.5 and have less shot in contact with the barrel, in a much easier shooting gun.
The shot is contained with in the shot cup now a days and does not rub the barrel.

The key to the 3 1/2" 12 is not shooting the huge load weights of the ten. It's shooting a traditional load weight like 1 1/4 oz or 1 3/8oz at a faster velocity. The 10 does not have the faster velocities for steel which means less pellet energy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,383 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
With all the money you spend on the entire waterfowl hunting experience, what's a few more dollars to shoot the better shells? Most guys I know have a $1K gun, spend $1K a year for their lease, have another $1K of decoys and other equipment and like 'yall, won't spend the extra $100 on good shells. Makes little sense to me. Besides, they're not that more expensive considering that I probably shoot one shot with the same results that my steel shooting buddies get with three shots...... and their birds hit the water alive, while mine are dead in the air. (HD now has a $15 dollar a box rebate.) Boom Boom Boom = Sweet Music.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,830 Posts
I have shot only a handful of 3.5" 12 ga rounds since 1987 or '88. I find the 3" steel loads to be work very well for me and will take down geese at any range I care to shoot. I have tried all the other non-toxics and have plenty on the shelves in the basement I'll have to either use up or sell as collectables sometime in the future. Steel is just too cost effective to not use, I just bought two flats of 3", 1 1/4 oz Federal PowerShok for $80 each on closeout. At the ranges I typically shoot geese these days, the cheapest shell out there does as well as any of the high dollar stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,067 Posts
I like the 3.5" 12 ga because I kill more geese with it, than I did with my 3 " guns.

I also like it because its so much easier to carry than any ten gauge out there. I often use it for hunting ducks or pheasants also. I just change to the appropriate load, 3" 1-1/4 oz steel 2's or 4's for ducks, and 2-3/4" 1-1/4oz lead 5's for pheasant. I consider my Winchester Super X2 to be the most versatile of all my guns. I just cannot afford $2.50 per shell for the exotics, no matter how much better ballistically they are than steel.

You know, I don't begrudge anyone that can afford it, the use of exotic metal shot, but I am sure tired of all the shot snobs telling me that me and my 3.5" are just a waste of space. I'm only doing what I have to do in order to be able to keep hunting.

If these shot snobs had their way there probably wouldn't be any public hunting ground either, if you can'd afford to lease you don't deserve to hunt, if you can't afford the super metal shells you don't deserve to hunt, blah, blah, blah. So tell me just what sweat is it off your backs, what gun and shell I use?
Do you really have this much disdain for a gun and a shell, or is it really just a case of performance anxiety, because your to big of a wimp to shoot the 3.5", therefore no one else should be able to either?

Won't be long and all us poor folk will be out of of your way when it comes to hunting, just like in England, or worse, like in Texas.

Jeff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,383 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Wow Jeff, you sure derailed and spun this thread around. All I said is that you don't need 3 1/2" shells to kill geese. Now it's a whole new twist that I've not heard of before, "shot snob", followed by people who use "exotic metal shot" taking away public hunting and ending in a protracted whine about "poor folk". I never mentioned money or class, but you did. I was simply tickled after killing a triple and doing it with short shells. Boy, you are over the edge. Take a pill and have a good day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28,183 Posts
SS said:
All I said is that you don't need 3 1/2" shells to kill geese.
You sure don't.

Some folks recoil at "studies," but sometimes studies are the best info we have. One commonly cited study compared crippiling losses to waterfowl, steel vs. lead. They found no difference.

What they did find was that the steel hunters used 180% the shells of the lead hunters. That suggests quite a bit when comparisons of steel and tungsten loads are being made.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,383 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Randy,

That's exactly why I find that HeviShot really costs no more than steel (if you can shoot). My steel shooting buddies always shoot 3-4 shells to my one. 180% just about mirrors what I'm seeing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,874 Posts
I do. Because I wanna feel like Homer Carlton from "On Deadly Ground".

Homer Carlton: [about his machine gun] Well, what do you think? Stock in or out?
Mercenary: I don't think it's going to make much difference.
Homer Carlton: Well, I do, see. 'Cause when it's out I kinda feel like a p****, you know what I'm saying. And when it's in, it just feels like, I don't know, meaner or something and when I kill the son of a ***** I wanna feel good about myself. I wanna feel solid.

When I bag a goose, I wanna feel solid too! :shock:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,098 Posts
With all the money you spend on the entire waterfowl hunting experience, what's a few more dollars to shoot the better shells? Most guys I know have a $1K gun, spend $1K a year for their lease, have another $1K of decoys and other equipment and like 'yall, won't spend the extra $100 on good shells. Makes little sense to me.
It's more than a $100.00 extra. A 250 round case of HS is around $525.00 and $135.00 for a case of 3 1/2" HV steel. Right now HS is the cheap dense non toxic load. Not a big deal for the target shooter who ventures off the warm and dry range for a waterfowl hunt or two.
I don't have a high cripple rate with any of my steel loads nor do I have to follow up with swatting on the water. More important than price is the fact that the Hevi Shot loads I tested in several guns and chokes all produced patterns with large holes. I've crippled with Hevi Shot and have others in the same blind cripple birds with the more dense loads. I don't see the point in paying more for less performance.

Like I've said before. The 3 1/2 HV steel loads and the more dense non toxic loads achive the same result. They both have more pellets and higher pellet energy. The 3 1/2" loads do it with some more recoil and the denser loads do it a much higher cost per shell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,383 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Worc,

My position has always been that the cost factor is a moot point. Based on what I see in my hunting, I shoot 1 shell to my steel shooting friends 3-4 and I kill at least as many birds. So, they buy 3-4 times as many shells as I do, making the cost essentially the same. This may be different for you and your area and I do understand comparing my results against another hunter's results does not account for how well one shoots. However, I'm dead sold on HS and even compared to my own shooting abilities with steel, HS is a substantially better killer (IMO) than the faster longer steel loads. Maybe it's a confidence thing, but it's the only shell that has worked so well for me since Winchester SuperX DoubleXX #2 lead. BTW, a case of HS would last me 3 years. Bottom line is to use what works for you and what I wrote was in the spirit of sharing my results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
I figure you're paying out the *** whether or not you shoot 3" or 3.5". To each their own. I personally shot 3" for about 9 years, then 3.5" for the last 3, and now that I have an O/U for waterfowling I probably will go back to 3". But my O/U is chambered for 3.5" so I still have the option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
579 Posts
If Sigmund Freud were still alive and kicking, I believe the good doctor would refer to shooters of the long 12 as suffering from "10 gauge envy".

Overly obsessed with that long, skinny hull. The "envy" shell fitting into a gun so light that it will beat you harder than a wife having been told you dumped the paycheck at the titty-bar.

The long 12 is a 'jack-of-all-trades'…master of none. I no longer own one and am most happy to lug the big 10 out into the fields and mashes when I suspect longer ranges to be the order of the day. The 10 is just so much nicer to shoot and more effective. Without exception my pattern testing of big shot sizes were far more efficient out of the 10 than the long 12. You don't need to be a huge man to handle the 10. I go a bit over 6'3" and (gulp) a bit over 280. However, I convinced a good hunting buddy of far smaller stature to switch. He couldn't believe how much milder the 10 was over his SBE.

However, for the guy that wants to (or doesn't have the means) have only one gun…the long 12 is very attractive and is a bit of an advantage over the 3" 12.
 
1 - 20 of 114 Posts
Top