"I do not understand why anyone would want a smaller gauge gun that weighs more than a 12."
So, why did I buy a 16 ga. RBL -- heavier than someone else's definition of maximum weight for a 16 -- when I could get a 12 ga. at the same or less weight and lower cost? I'll add my reasons to Chief's "different strokes" response: here's what I wanted and got with my RBL 16 at just under 6.75 lbs.
-- New gun with customer specified choke/stock choices, warranty, and 100% of it's lifespan ahead. (Question: Why would I want to invest the time and effort to find a used lightweight 12 that fits my specs and has no age-related issues I don't want to deal with?)
-- I like a single trigger when wearing heavy gloves in far below freezing temperatures -- like single digits in the mornings.
-- For those who like the Brits' prescribed rules, it fits the "rule of 96X" target weight for 1-1/8 oz. pheasant loads, while still comfortable for occasional 1-1/4 oz. duck (Kent TMs) or late season pheasant (Federal) loads. Could serve for turkeys too.
-- Comfortable shooting higher volume at clays with same gun I use in the field.
-- No worries about steel shot.
-- Straight grip wrist is more slender than Penelope Cruz's.
(I don't have small hands.)
It would be easy enough to reduce stock thickness or bore out more wood to get the weight of this gun well under 6.5 lbs. But I don't want it that light -- at least not now at age 58. I mostly hunt pheasants over springers, and I use my legs more than the hup whistle. The weight of this gun carried for hours just is not an issue. If it is when I'm 70 or 75, maybe I'll take some wood off the stock.
This gun does everything I'll ask a gun of any gauge to do for my kind of hunting. (Please don't start in about shot strings.)
Jay
