Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been lurking/searching this forum for 4 weeks. Thanks to all of you I've learned a ton of information!

It all comes downs to this: I need to make a choice b/w the 391 Urika and the Extrema2 (without the KickOff). I have shouldered both guns and I believe they each fit me well--too well--I'd like to have 'em both. I hunt ducks and geese on farm ponds, phesants, turkeys, and the odd dove. I don't shoot clays. While money is always an issue, this gun will be my "do it all" autoloader so I'm willing to spend the extra cash on the Extrema2--if I need it. I currently hunt with a Rem 870 Exp. Mag.

My thoughts:
I walk alot when I hunt=Urika (lighter)
My hunting leans heavily toward ducks and geese=Extrema2
3.5 shells for ducks, geese and turkeys are expesive=Urika
Non-corrosive "aqua" finish=Extrema2
Do I really need a 3.5 gun?=Urika
"Hey, look! I have a 3.5 gun!"=Extrema2

See what I mean? I could go on but you get the point. What do you think?

Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,099 Posts
Welcome to SGW. You must be hanging around a Scheels! For all around use I would stay with a 3" model. The Xtrema II is a nice gun that is fairly light and does a pretty good job with lighter loads but geared for waterfowling and turkey. The Xtrema is way easier to clean the the AL391. The AL391 is lighter, thinner, and shorter in overall length which lends to a quicker pointing gun.

I would go with an AL391 with either a 26" or 28" barrel myself for the uses you listed. You should go with the one that feels the best to YOU.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
856 Posts
I traded off my Extrema for a 391. I had one of the early Extremas that shot to the left (worse with hi-vel steel). I use a 391 for Trap & Sporting....so I got a camo 391 to hunt with. Don't really need a 3.5" shell for most of my hunting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
It sounds like I should be leaning toward the Extrama2. I waterfowl and turkey hunt the majority of the time. I'll suck it up and shoulder the extra weight. The easy cleaning is a big plus for me as we often hunt in the sleet and rain. Thanks for your responses!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,180 Posts
Both are great guns. I really love my Urika. I chose it over the Xtrema last year because I felt I didn't need to shoot a 3.5" shell and the Urika should be able to cycle the light target loads I use for clay shooting.

Either way you'll be happy. Give Cott Firearms a call at 660-886-3400. They usually have great prices on Berettas. If you call him please tell him you got his name from Van on shotgun world. Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Last year I had the 391 urika in max4, this year I traded it for the xtrema2. In cold weather there is no question the xtrema cycles better because there is no spring in the stock which also means it is easier to clean. The xtrema2 is thinner etc... a lot like the urika. With todays shells you don't need 3.5" but it is nice to have the option. I am glad I made the switch. I bought mine in 26" black synthetic. Great gun!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
I had the same question on my hands last year. I had a short barrel wood stocked 390 I sold to a friend for a do it all gun and wanted a new one for waterfowl and turkey primarily. I got the Xtrema.

I have picked up the Xtrema II but I have not shot it. I have an original Xtrema and love it. I have shot about everything with it including doves this last year. I love it! I would rather carry around a nice O/U 20 for most small game, but for blocking pheasant drives, hunting doves in a fixed location, turkeys, and water fowl I love the Xtrema. I also do a lot of clay shooting and am amazed at how well I shoot with it and how well it eats up those 1 oz. loads.

If you primarily wanted an all around gun and will carry it around a lot I would go with the 3" gun with out a question.

With the new high performance non-tox waterfowl loads out there you really don't need a 3.5" gun, but if you want to shoot the new less expensive 3.5" high velocity steel the 3.5" is the way to go.

The 3" vs 3.5" gun debate rages with the waterfowl crowd. Many argue that the new loads negate the need for the 3.5" and many argue if you call good you don't need a 3.5". I call good enough, but I don't have the best spots to hunt so some time I have to shoot out a little. I decided I wanted the versatility to shoot any load I had a mind to shoot and for what I was going to use the gun for I didn't mind the extra weight. The cost of those new loads compared to the great new high velocity steel loads is quite a large gap. When shooting steel the really high velocity stuff is the way to go and when shooting the larger steel pellets a few more pellets won't hurt either. I shoot mostly 3" steel over decoys, but for the third round, large late season mallards, and for shooting the big Canadian geese I like to hit them with the 3.5" loads. The new real high velocity steel 3.5" really don't have that much more shot in them than the old 3" steel and I just as soon open up the choke a bit and fill that pattern out.

Then there is that box of 3.5" copper plated turkey loads I pick up to 75% off this summer. Can't wait to turn a couple of those loose on the patterning paper this year. Now if I didn't have that 3.5" gun I would have missed out! Now you only need a .410 for a turkey if you call them in close, but what the heck those 3.5" ones will be fun to try out to see how they pattern.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
124 Posts
I have a lot of experience with Beretta autoloaders. I have a 20g Browning B-80 (Beretta 302 clone) that i have taken to Argentina for doves 4 times with great success. we put 500-1000 dirty shells a day through the gun. It must be cleaned every 500 or so. not bad for a 20 year old gun.

I also have a 12g Beretta 390 that has worked flawlessly for me for years on ducks in dirty, wet and freezing conditions with minimal maintenance. I put 500 plus shells a season through the 390 with minimal cleaning.

last year I bought an Xtrema 2 with KO because i wanted a camo gun (camo does make a difference in the duck blind) and needed to justify it as an upgrade over the 390. it has worked very well but the reallity is i do not need it. the 391 would have been just as good as i will never use 3 1/2 inch shells. If you are going goose hunting you are better off with a 3 inch gun and use the price difference on tungsten shells.

One thing to be aware of, if you fly with your gun, the Xtrema is too long for the regular Pelican take down case and you will need a special longer flight case.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top