|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 members (MattH, David Kinton, buckstix, Roundsworth, Jason Dubois, 1 invisible),
1,280
guests, and
6
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,481
Posts545,238
Members14,410
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1,199 Likes: 7 |
+1 Stan.
There's a time and a place for everything. I wouldn't want to go after woodcock with my 12, nor after ducks with my 16 or 20.
All of which, of course, is an excuse good reason to buy more guns and different guns.
fiery, dependable, occasionally transcendent
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 578
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 578 |
My web footed birds I hunt with a 12 and 20, for grouse, woodcock and doves it's a 16 or 28. That way they all stay happy/
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,104 Likes: 592
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,104 Likes: 592 |
This is perception, so I may be all wet here, but... the 12 gauge is the yardstick I use to measure lethality. Most birds I shoot at with the 12 expire fairly quickly and are "brought to bag". With the 20s and 28s I've owned and used, I noticed what I believe to be a definite loss of lethality. Birds that would likely have died if I'd been using a 12, end up being lost and likely wounded with little chance of surviving. The 16 seems to hit a truely "sweet" spot, balancing very good lethality and a much better weight and balance than most 12s can deliver.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 931
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 931 |
A very personal opinion, but for me a splinter-forearm side-by side feels more natural in the left hand if it's a 16 than either 12 or 20. 12 is just a bit too bulky for comfortable grip, while 20 fees just a bit too whimpy. A person with a different hand size or using different hold might think differently or not notice it at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,154 Likes: 1152 |
This is perception, so I may be all wet here, but... the 12 gauge is the yardstick I use to measure lethality. Most birds I shoot at with the 12 expire fairly quickly and are "brought to bag". With the 20s and 28s I've owned and used, I noticed what I believe to be a definite loss of lethality. Birds that would likely have died if I'd been using a 12, end up being lost and likely wounded with little chance of surviving. The 16 seems to hit a truely "sweet" spot, balancing very good lethality and a much better weight and balance than most 12s can deliver. I agree with that, Lloyd. I have noticed that loss of lethality on the dove field with the .410. I swat them down with it, but they aren't "dishragged", as we say. Many, many more of them are still alive. A good retriever is very important there. If I were losing any of them as cripples I would quit using it, but I've got a jam up retriever right now!  He loves it as much as any Boykin or Lab that ever drew a breath. Proabably went 98% for me the past season. He's so good a buddy tried to buy him off me 'bout a month ago. Gonna lose him soon, tho'. He'll start shooting a little next season, but I've got a chocolate Lab pup on the way.  SRH
May God bless America and those who defend her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292 |
It's made on a 20 gauge receiver vrs. a 12 gauge receiver.
Since the "Sweet Sixteen' was introduced in 1936 and the first 20 gauge A-5 was introduced in 1958, HOW can the "Sweet Sixteen" be built on a 20 gauge A-5 receiver....?...... Production of the A-5 began at F.N. in 1902, with the first gun shipped to the U.S.A. on September 17, 1903. Twelve gauge guns were usually offered in the U.S.A. until 1925, but production of the 16 gauge A-5 began in 1909.....and the name change "Sweet Sixteen" was introduced in 1936..... http://www.browning.com/customerservice/qna/detail.asp?ID=202
Doug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,703 Likes: 103
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,703 Likes: 103 |
So, is the Sweet 16 built on a 20ga A-5 frame or not?. My Grand dad's pre-1936 Belgian A-5 16 feels about like any actual Sweet 16 I've compared it to...Geo
Last edited by Geo. Newbern; 01/21/13 12:25 PM. Reason: added some
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 504 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 504 Likes: 7 |
Just called Browning and ask the difference between a Sweet Sixteen and a standard sixteen. The answer: engraving, finish and in some cases better wood. That's it.
Around the steel no tortured worm shall twine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,292 |
Just called Browning and ask the difference between a Sweet Sixteen and a standard sixteen. The answer: engraving, finish and in some cases better wood. That's it. AMEN...... Geo. Newbern take note, no it is NOT built on a 20 gauge frame since the 20 gauge frame was not around until 1958 and is smaller......... Browning 16 gauge A-5 made in 1929, before the Sweet Sixteen moniker.....same gun, different engraving and cosmetics....   
Doug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,035 Likes: 47 |
Balony.
Compare the two side by side.
The 20 is built on the 16 ga. frame then.
There are two frame sizes, big and small.
A 'sweet 16' is on the small frame, the standard 16 is on the large one.
Thus the weight difference.
All 'sweets' are 2 3/4" guns also.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
