Why do some people rate a guns reliability on how it performs on a clays course?? Why not rate a guns reliability against what it was designed to do? The A-5 was never made as a clays gun, it was made to be a rugged hunting tool. I think its safe to say the Mr. J.M. Browning knew exactly how to make a reliable weapon...and according to him...the A-5 was his hallmark gun, his proudest accomplishment. I will say that most people out there who have owned A-5's or even Remington Model 11's do not know how to properly care for them....un-wisely thinking that the gun should be douched with oil..the magazine tube douched with oil.....set the friction rings up wrong...you name it...they do everything Mr. Browning told them NOT to do if you want the gun to function properly. I've used my A-5's in marshes in central Nebraska, I've had them caked with mud after accidently dropping it in the marsh (had to use a cattail to clear the barrel) and guess what...it functioned everytime I pulled the trigger...I've hunted the Platte river for 10 years using a A-5....anyone who's hunted the Platte knows how much sand accumulates in your gun during a hunt....I dont even know how it all gets in there, but it does....and still the A-5 went boom everytime. While I'm a big fan of the 1100's....they are no A-5, not even close, not even in the same league. I believe there is a section in the JM Browning book that goes in depth on what he put the A-5's through before he pronounced the design functional and reliable in his eyes. If it passed his test....it passess anything anyone can put it through. Amazing gun the A-5.
Dustin
