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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 members (JulesW, Der Ami, 1 invisible),
453
guests, and
4
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,931
Posts550,843
Members14,460
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 526 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 526 Likes: 3 |
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,578 Likes: 32
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,578 Likes: 32 |
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.
foxes rule
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 470
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 470 |
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 526 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 526 Likes: 3 |
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
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,008 |
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!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133 |
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.
|
|
|
|
MIKE THE BEAR
Unregistered
|
MIKE THE BEAR
Unregistered
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 236
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 236 |
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.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 517
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 517 |
When a grouse flushes in the real thick stuff, I step back two inches and fire my 28-inch-barreled gun. Easy.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,373 Likes: 6
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,373 Likes: 6 |
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.
Such a long, long time to be gone, and a short time to be there.
|
|
|
|
|