And at longer ranges that can be critical.....you have more pellets in that target area. As the range increases, so too does the size of the pattern. With more pellets in the payload, you get more in the kill area. It's pretty simple. Also, with lighter loads, 3.5" shells can offer a bit more velocity, once again increasing range. They are not the answer for poor marksmanship or for extreme range shooting but as I've said all along....in "some" cases they do offer an advantage over 3" shells.

Not saying you can't get it all done with 3" or 2.75" or even .410 shells for that matter but ballistically speaking there is an advantage to 3.5" shells and in "some", albeit a small number of cases, that can offer an advantage to the hunter. If you are willing to confine your shots to the effective range of the shells you choose then yes, they offer no advantage but if you want to increase that effective range a few yards then the 3.5" 12 guauge or the 10 gauge will do it.

Like I said, I'm not a proponent of 3.5" shells but to say that there is no advantage to them is plain wrong just as sayintg there is no advantage to the .300 Win mag over the .30-06. Just look at the ballistic tables.

If shooting 3.5 shells is not for you then don't do it but no need to knock those that do and to spread inaccurate information about them.

I'm sure you have killed a load of birds with 2 3/4 shells Ryan and if that's all you shoot it stands to reason that you've killed them all with that. But what about the ones you shot at and didn't kill? That's where the real test lies. Would a larger shell have made a difference? More pellets in the target area.....quite possibly.