doublegunshop.com - home

Don ... Thanks for posting the information. The 20s from a handling standpoint are a close match to the 12s.

The shell payload of a 2" 12 (7/8 or 15/16) matches the 20. I doubt there is a good way to show the 2" 12 will pattern better than a 2 1/2" 20 with the same payload. I know I wouldn't want to shoot today's 20 gauge (2 3/4") target loads for long in a 5 1/2 lb 20 for very long.

Ken

True enough.

A standard 20 target load is manageable in a 6 1/4 pound gun. I've burned a couple hundred a day many, many times.

But when you get under 6 pounds, a 28 gauge target load in a 20 gauge hull is just the ticket.

The trend is toward loading the 20 lighter, and we have wads and components that make this easy now.

It took me a while to come around, but the acquisition of a 6 pound 20 gauge SxS convinced me.

You shoot better when it doesn't hurt.

Actually, Ken, there is a way to accurately compare them. Dr. A. C. Jones created a beautiful computer analysis system called shotgun insights. It provides analysis of digital photos of patterns at the statistically significant level. There might be a problem in finding a 2" 12 and 2 1/2" 20 with comparable constriction. But, for someone who has the time and inclination, it is certainly possible.

DDA

Volume of shots fired & conditions under which they are fired of course play a major role in this. I recall on one occasion using 1 factory 1 1/4 oz 3" 20 gauge load of #4 shot to kill a young Blue Goose from a 6 1/4 lb double. (Italian Rich-land 707). Didn't feel a thing when she went off. A couple hundred rounds in an afternoon on a range would be a totally different thing.

A younger co-worker of mine, he was abou 40 at the time, bought a used Spanish 12 gauge double. 28" barreled, DTNE, choked I/C-Mod with factory 3" chambers. He put one of those
1 7/8 oz Roman Candle loads in each barrel, picked out something to shoot at, threw it to his shoulder with a finger on each trigger. He yanked both triggers simultaneously & there was one big loud Ka-Bloom. He was laughing as he lowered the gun & said she's just a mere Pussy-Cat & went on his merry way. Sure sounds like a big bunch of Sissies around here to me.
Miller/TN

"Sure sounds like a big bunch of Sissies around here to me."

Hey.

I resemble that remark...

It's all about how much the gun weighs, how you mount it, and how well fits you. I agree that a 5 1/2# gun could provide more recoil than one might want under high volume. But, that's not it's niche. The lightweights are for carrying all day and shooting occasionally.

OTOH, add just a few ounces to the gun, make sure it fits you, and you can shoot an unlimited amount through it without a problem. My Beretta 687 SPII Sporting weighs 6# 3.9 oz, empty. I have put nearly 1500 rounds through it in six hours of shooting doves in Cordoba, using mostly 7/8 oz. loads, with no recoil issues. My shoulder would be slightly tender by late afternoon, but completely normal the next morning. And, the thing is, I can easily carry that gun all day in the uplands without tiring.

I'm with Miller. I'm amazed at the inability of so many to handle a little recoil, nobody here in particular, and, I might add, the inability to carry a gun that weighs over 6 lbs. I understand that heart surgery and other things can be extenuating circumstances, but I'm afraid we have become a country of pussies.

SRH

Much like the fact that a phone must reach from the mouth to the ear, I couldn't help but notice in Don's data, that the point of diminishing returns is reached in this battle.

I don't see better shooting on game with super light shotguns.

I must be turning into a "pussy" when I was younger my favorite gun for waterfowl was my 10 lb double 10 Ga. Actually I have two of them, one with 22" barrels (long story) and one with 32" barrels, I used to jump shoot the local field in the river bottoms, so it got packed all day, the only time I got hurt by one of them, I was shooting some heavy BPI loads and it double fired on me, my arm went numb and I almost dropped the gun.

Now that I'm a little older I find it so pleasant to carry my 6# double 20 Ga.

TM

Stan--What we have become is a nation where far fewer people have jobs involving significant physical labor. It's interesting to note, re gun weight, that American classic smallbores are far more sought after (and command a far higher price--both supply and demand working in their favor) than are 12's. Thus, to a certain degree, the "pussification" of this country when it comes to what a gun weighs.

I'd have no issue with your gun--and in fact carried one a few ounces heavier hunting Iowa pheasants last week--if we're talking about open country birds. But a lot of people who hunt grouse and woodcock (and who spend a significant amount of time actually IN the puckerbrush as opposed to walking trails) would probably find it a bit heavy. I would. I'm right about at my "woods gun" max with a recently acquired Rizzini 550 28ga, at 5 3/4 pounds. The stuff I hunt requires a lot of one hand carrying. Even lighter would be better, and after the season's over, I'm thinking about stock surgery to convert a PG to straight (which I prefer anyhow) and shaving off another 2 or 3 ounces. But open country hunting, I don't think 6 1/2 should be much of an issue. Remembering the guys who carried 12ga A-5's when I was a kid, that has to be a piece of cake. But then I remember what most of those guys did for a living . . .

Re recoil, I'm not particularly sensitive. But some people are sold on the idea that either a very heavy load of shot and/or warp speed velocity are necessary to bag a pheasant. The 4 I collected last week all fell to Kent Gamebore 1 1/16 oz loads. I like that particular 2 1/2" load, although the gun through which I shot them is chambered 2 3/4", and I had my "heavy" load--a 1 1/8 oz reload--available in the full choke barrel. Given all that choke, I figure that 1 1/8 oz 6's gives me all the range I both might need and am capable of using. Something like 1 1/4 oz @ 1500 fps, which is what we see in a lot of today's "premium" pheasant loads . . . no thanks. I'm sure the gun would handle it, but I might find myself flinching in anticipation. And I don't think the pheasant--unless maybe he's out there at 50 yards or so--would notice the difference.

So, as we've become a nation of people who do less physical labor, we've also become a nation of people who won't put forth any off-the-job effort to stay in shape either, eh?

I'll stand by my earlier statement, and will add lazy to that previous description.

SRH