A maneuverable gun is a big advantage on these birds, just as much as a canon is helpful on sand hill cranes. Think about all the fast shots you’ve had to make on teal that come in from behind the blind. If the gun is used only for waterfowl, it might not matter. If you are going to use the same duck gun as a field shotgun, you will definitely begrudge the extra weight of the 3-1/2″. Anything meant to shoot a 3-1/2″ shell is bound to be heavier just to ensure the survival of the gunner. I’m not saying better or worse, but they are different. Benelli’s Super Black Eagle is a bit more of a handful than their Montefeltro. But… it is noticeably heavier and less maneuverable than Beretta’s 391. In return you are forced into a different class of gun and that has certain consequences.Įxample: Beretta’s Xtrema2 is a 3-1/2″ and is an excellent gun. Between the 3″ and 3-12″ you pick up about 1/4 oz of shot (1-1/8 oz vs 1-3/8 oz in Remington steel or 1-1/2 oz vs 1-3/4 oz in Remington’s amazing (and amazingly expensive) new HD Wingmaster).
How much more “bang” do you really get out of a 3 1/2″ shell, and does that make it worth going for a 3 1/2″ chambered gun? (I had been looking at 3″ chambered guns, but after my experience hunting sandhill cranes this year with a 3″ chambered double, I thought maybe it would be worth getting a 3 1/2″ chambered gun for those odd times when you’re trying to take down something real big…) Ok, I’m in the market for a new autoloader that I’ll use mostly for ducks and geese.
0 kommentar(er)
