I have read many times about the advantages of a short barreled gun to use in heavy cover. I have read of hunters who hunted all morning long with a 28" barreled sxs and by noon time, frustrated by the gun catching on all the thick growth, took a hack saw, cut off 3", and immediatly started hitting birds.
I find it hard to believe that 2 or 3 inches would make all that difference.
I have a 16 gauge sxs with 30" barrels that I use for grouse hunting, it is easily carried because it is so light. (under 6lbs.) I have no more trouble with it than I do with my shorter barreled guns (26").
Do you think that a ultra short-barreled gun is needed in heavy cover?
Pete

Browning for years made a 24" upland special in their Citori line that came with a factory english stock. People bought them primarily for grouse/woodcock hunting in thick cover where they could be snap shot very quickly. I owned one in 16 gauge (very hard one to find) for some time. I found it didn't swing worth a darn and was more of a poke and pull the trigger gun. Still, in a grouse/woodcock situation very early in the season it worked quite well.

Back to your question. In thick cover its doesn't hurt to have a short barrel gun (26" as short as I can imagine) and I think my 30" Sterlingworth 16 gauge would indeed be banging against limbs brush and would cause problems if I needed to get it up in a hurry. Now, when I mean thick, I mean so thick you have to use your left arm to ward off the brush so you can you can move forward through the brush with your body. That's thick and when its that thick a longer barrel gun is indeed a handicap when both carrying and shooting IMO.

My Churchill Imperial sidelock XXV 2 inch chamber 12 bore at 5 pounds 3 oz. is just the ticket. Easily controled with 1 hand as you make your way through the thick stuff, and light and fast for that "poke and a hope". It fits me well, so it often connects; all I do is point and pull the trigger.

Best,

Mal

Tut, I understand what you're saying, I know it is very hard to swing a gun on a bird in this heavy stuff, but does 4"(the width of your hand) make it that much harder?
I wonder how many nice guns had their barrels bobbed after reading this in hunting magazines?

Pet

Not worth cutting down a barrel but I have used a XXV for years with great success.

It takes some practise to learn to swing a very short-barreled gun. They move differently. But light loads in my 12 ga XXV were wonderful. Unfortunately I fell in love with a 16 ga that I use most often now and that has 28-inch barrels.

Even with the XXV there were times I couldn't swing!

You will whack your barrels into things when grouse and woodcock hunting. However, it's not usually the last 2-3". Of course the shorter the barrels, the lighter the gun--and as Mal pointed out, when you're doing a lot of one-hand carrying, lighter is better.

Before my "conversion" to Double Guns, I used a Remington 1100 with a 28" barrel and had very good luck in hitting Grouse in New England's heavy cover. Never once banged a barrel into a tree.
I think the mind , being a fabulous computer, has a way of compensating for objects that are in our path. Be it walking, or swinging a gun. Can't claim that it works every time, but I certainly wouldn't rule out using or buying a gun with 28" or even 30" barrels, as my Grouse gun, if it fits and one likes it for other reasons. Now 32" might be pushing it.

Come on now Tut. Get away from the gun books and off the sofa, and out in coverts with some longer barrel guns. Also get out and do some shooting where you learn to swing and acquire the target instead of poking at it.. Then write back and tell us what you found out. Chance of banging into a tree with the last 4 inches of a 30 inch barreled double gun, is only a small per cent greater than with a 26 inch. And that my fellow is with a double gun. Many hunt and do well with 26 inch pumps and autoloaders, and with the length of the receiver that's abouut the same as a 30 inch or even longer double gun.

When a grouse flushes in the real thick stuff, I step back two inches and fire my 28-inch-barreled gun. Easy.

Lessee:

1. No stories yet about someone hitting a tree in grouse cover with a longer barreled gun.
2. More importantly, no stories yet about someone missing a bird because they hit a tree in grouse cover with a longer barreled gun.
3. Most importantly, no stories yet about someone denting a barrel because they hit a tree in grouse cover with a longer barreled gun.

Short barrels aren't just for heavy cover.

Where is your rope?

I hunt heavy cover for grouse and woodcock. Of course I'd never cut the barrels off my gun (and frankly my guess is, that is stuff of legend, not reality) but I would like to see what a shorter gun does. Frankly, I don't think it'll make that big of a difference. As many have said, when in the thick, it doesn't seem to be the last couple inches of the barrel that's really causing the problem.

My Boss 20 is wonderfully light, even with long barrels, so I can carry it all day without any discomfort, so it's not really a weight issue with me - it's just that the cover is seriously thick and I wonder if having that Churchill XXV would allow for a little more nimble movement. Then again, I almost got hit right in the face by an incoming grouse last year that I couldn't have swung on with a snub-nosed .38.

Recently hunted quail with a 32" LC Smith hammer gun (chokes bored out to imp cyl/mod) figuring I would be in the open fields no problem. Ended up in the thick stuff a few times (old rabbit hunter don't know any better), and it didn't bother me at all.
CHAZ

Chuck is carrying a funny gun for Moutain Goats...

I've hunted the North GA woods, fields, and swamps with all manner of double guns having barrels up to 34" (DHE Parker); and for all around shooting, guns with 28 and 30" barrels are my preference. But when it came to actually killing small game, the MOST effective double gun I ever owed and used was an el-cheapo Spanish double gun; an Erbi with factory 18" barrels and cylinder bore chokes. I absolutely could not miss with that gun, and hunted with that gun for years as a young man when, to me, the weight of my game bag was the most important aspect of the hunt. As I "matured", other factors such as aesthetics began to dominate my thinking; and Lord was that thing was butt ugly, so I traded it off in favor of a Parker. And although I've never cut a set of barrels and never will, I've certainly owned and hunted with my fair share of bobbed-barreled doubles; which personal experience causes me to conclude the following: short barreled double guns most definitely provide the shooter a distinct advantage in close cover shooting opportunities afforded by southern cane-brakes, red-nosed briar patches, privet thickets, second growth cut-overs, etc.

I have hunted woodcock & grouse cover with with a 26" 28ga SxS, a 28" 20ga O/U, a 25" (over a Cutts) 20ga M12, a 27 3/4" 12ga SxS, a 29" 16ga SxS & others that I can't remember & I've sometimes had the bbls hit saplings while mounting the gun & or swinging on a target with all of them. That's just part of hunting heavy cover.

The length of the bbls makes no difference at all & to think that 3" or 4" of bbl is going to matter is ridiculous marketing hype.

What does make a difference, is having a gun that is balanced so you can comfortably carry it muzzle up in your trigger hand while you push through the brush with the off hand. Having something between 6 & 6 1/4 lbs works well for me. Any thing heavier requires the gun to be balanced too far to the rear for a smooth swing.

I hunt 26-30" and the plain fact is, when in heavy cover, the shorter the barrels, the less interference. It's simple math.

yep: its back to the seventies we go...

is it time to get a new blade for the hack saw?

I find that as the snow gets deeper shorter barrels are easier to carry without accidently accumulating buildup in the muzzle.

I am endeared to my Hellis 2" 12 for the same reasons, 26" bbls but light enough to manage with one hand.

In the early days of my hunting career I watched a buddy chasing a woodcock through some real tough stuff one day with a 28" Browning BPS. Made me go home and hacksaw the barrels of a minty 16ga Stevens 311 back to 22". Still have it as a reminder to leave guns alone, just buy another.

A 30" barrel in this stuff.... No thank you, I'll stick to my 26" barrel Sterly.

I favor a 26" gun for heavy cover; just seems to make going easier.

A friend of mine has one of those, in 20 ga. and he loaned it to me for a hunt we did last fall - he's convinced the dogs he was rehabbing would take the louder noise of a 16 or 12 badly and we were going to hunt the thick stuff - vines, bittersweet, brambles, old orchards, multiflora rose, you name it.

It handled quite well and I came to appreciate the 24 inch barrels - easy to maneuver in the thick stuff and not a drag to carry. Every gun has a purpose. Short-barrelled guns have a place and so do those bolt-action goose guns with 36 or 40 inch single barrels, the latter being "to prop up the tent".

Shorter barrel 25 or 26 inch is definitely faster than 28 but for birds I can't see it making a big difference except the weight meaning carrying all day.
25 is a nice rabbit gun length.

Way back "in the day", when we still had decent ruffed grouse numbers in Iowa, I was 2/2 on ruffs with my 28" barreled Sauer 16. #3 gave me a nice look on a crossing shot, but escaped just as my barrels encountered a tree. It does happen, and that was the closest I ever came to killing an Iowa limit with 3 shots.

In tight cover I problably put first priority on (lighter) weight, and after that I am somewhat ambivalent about barrel length. Most of my deep woods stuff has been done with 26-28 bbls. If the discussion turns to the dynamics of short vs long barrels, there is a point just before my eyes glaze over where I will admit that in fifty years I cannot remember a single instance in the grouse woods that allowed me the luxury of a conscious swing. Egad! Sounds like spot-shooting, doesn't it?

I knew a guy that swung hard into a tree trying to get on a grouse. It wrecked the gun and broke his nose. It would have happened with 26 or 28 inch barrels. After thinking that short was the way to go in a grouse covert for years I've switched to longer barrels for better dynamics in the gun. Time will tell. I like the feel but have not had enough birds present yet to know if the better feel will mean more hits. It has produced good percentages (for me) on clays and I don't think I'll again be searching out the shorter guns.

you guys talkin about the good old days of grouse huntin makes me get all mushy...boy do i long for those long gone pa autumn days spent with my ole setter princie and my little beagle maggie...those two were the best grouse findingest dynamic duo there ever was... best day we ever had was 44 flushes, 18 shots fired and no birds in the bag...

2 inches here, 2 inches there and soon no more choke. That is what you need in the Maine woods.

In my experience I've found there's absolutely no difference between 30" barrels and 26" barrels. I'll miss every grouse and every woodcock regardless of length.

Older Doc, you nailed it!



Surely true. With the cutting he did away with the chokes, that's why he started hitting birds.

JC

+1, no, +10, Kid.

I suffer from the same result, so I stick with not cutting mine.

Not that it matters, of course. It's in my head. I am still haunted by the easy miss last fall on a cock pheasant that flushed straight-away, unobstructed view in an open field, no briers hanging on me, against an open sky, no wind worth talking about, less than 20 yards away. Plain, silly open miss with both barrels that haunts me in the field and every time I get a straightaway bird at trap, too.