Shotgun Accuracy by Gun make

[Bobbydee]

As one who has not experimented with many different shotguns! My question is does accuracy/ pattern improve on better(more expensive guns) like Benelli or browning! Or is it quality of choke that improves accuracy/ pattern?? Does barrel length help with shot shells too?

Are the more expensive guns just more ergonomic and comfortable maybe better balance?

Any thoughts from all you gunners?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bobinthesky]

Expensive shotguns don't necessarily shoot better than inexpensive ones, more often that not it's the shooter that makes the difference.
Having said that, the manufacturers of more expensive guns tend to have more money in research and development which eventually shows up in the more inexpensive guns once the patents run out. The other thing that makes shotguns expensive is the finish, namely the level of engraving, the metal finish, the grade of wood and the amount of hand fitting involved.
Barrel technology is constantly evolving and the top manufacturers such as Browning, Beretta, Benelli and a few others have barrels that are leaps and bounds ahead of the many of the other brands in terms of patterning and recoil. Over bore barrels, long forcing cones and longer choke tubes have become the norm in good guns. Barrel porting was a popular fad that works well on rifles but does nothing for shotguns and is slowly but thankfully dying out.
Barrel length hasn't got much to do with accuracy. Short barrels are great for short range work such as home defense or house clearing but are at a huge disadvantage on the target range or hunting. Hunting guns tend to have barrels in the mid length range, mostly for handling, range guns tend to have long barrels.
Some existing companies have cut production costs to fill the lower end market. One company that has tried to cut costs drastically in the last few years is Remington and it really shows in the product, they are not the well made gun they once were.
Other companies have turned to overseas manufacturers particularly in Turkey. Often these guns are copies of older production guns by top manufacturers and some of them are proving to be fairly well made. One example is the Weatherby Sa-08, it's a copy of the 300 series Beretta that was made 30 or 40 years ago.
Over the years I've watched young guys come to a competition with an old 870 or something similar and give the old guys with their expensive guns a run for their money. They have young eyes with quick reflexes and some of them scoff at the old guys with their expensive guns but I've notices as these young guys grow older, their guns eventually get more expensive too!

[elkhunter11]

The more expensive shotguns offer better fit and finish, better materials, and more machined parts rather than cast or stamped parts. The result is usually smoother actions, and more reliable guns. The higher end guns also usually have more emphasis placed on balance and ergonomics, than the low end guns. Accuracy wise , your ability to hit flying targets is overwhelmingly the result of proper gun fit and shooter ability, and much less the result of better quality barrels or chokes. If you are shooting clay targets at a higher level, then a higher end shotgun and chokes may make enough difference in accuracy to notice, but for the average hunter, or clay shooter, the advantage of the higher end gun is more the reliability factor.

[Bergerboy]

^^^
Agree with this. If a more expensive shotgun was more accurate I would only shoot Perazzi.

[Quinn]

Build quality, fit and finish, wood selection, etc add largely to the cost increase.

After about $2000-2500, what you get for what you pay in addition to this cost doesn't change much.

As noted, fit should be #1, feel should be #2. The rest doesn't get you nearly as far but lust and desires come into play. Keep in mind these companies (Beretta, Browning, Benelli, Blaser, etc) are exceptionally good at marketing nothing. Nothing has been a big game changer in 20+years. Removable chokes would likely be the biggest thing to go mainstream.

[bobinthesky]

Where have you been?
In the last twenty years, shotgun manufacturers have gone to over bored barrels, longer forcing cones, choke tubes, then longer choke tubes, adjustable combs, parallel combs, better recoil pads, more dedicated target models as opposed to using field guns all the time, synthetic stocks, camo stocks, gas semi's that can shoot light as well as heavy loads, more manufacturers to chose from, the list goes on and on!
Shotguns today as opposed to 20+ years ago have advanced leaps and bounds and I for one would hate to go back to shooting an old gun in competition rather than my new one, there's no comparison between the two!

[Groundhogger]

^all of that is spot-on in my experience. Fit/finish/balance/build quality and in the case of semis, reliability too. But to the question of accuracy, that is subjective to a LARGE degree...as EVERYTHING impacts accuracy/patterning.

For instance, if you had a 28" Remington 870 barrel and say...4 choke tubes (CYL/IC/MOD/FULL), a box of #6 shells...set-up 4 targets @ 10 yards or so. Shoot target 1 with CYL tube in, target 2 with IC, etc. until you've shot all 4. That will tell you how THAT barrel length, those tubes, that shell/shot/make type will pattern. Change any one factor (tube type/constriction, the distance, the shot size, the barrel length) everything will change to some degree. Sometimes, allot. In other words, a 21" barrel with and Extra full choke tube won't pattern the same as a 28" barrel with an Extra full choke tube...or rather, isn't likely to~so don't assume it will.

Guess what I'm trying to say is this~for most shotguns out there (definitely the ones I've had allot of time with) "accuracy" is a marriage of allot of things, but whether or not you hit what you're shooting at depends on how well you know the gun (=allot of practice) how your barrels/chokes pattern with the exact type of shells you plan to use, etc. I'm certainly no expert, but I do allot of homework/practice and try to maintain my shotguns extremely well. That way, when I miss...I know it's just me being a dummy.

[Quinn]

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

Where have you been?
In the last twenty years, shotgun manufacturers have gone to over bored barrels, longer forcing cones, choke tubes, then longer choke tubes, adjustable combs, parallel combs, better recoil pads, more dedicated target models as opposed to using field guns all the time, synthetic stocks, camo stocks, gas semi's that can shoot light as well as heavy loads, more manufacturers to chose from, the list goes on and on!
Shotguns today as opposed to 20+ years ago have advanced leaps and bounds and I for one would hate to go back to shooting an old gun in competition rather than my new one, there's no comparison between the two!

I'd still argue the opposite. It's a gun, simple barrel, and choke. The rest are pretty minor or minor adaptions.

[bobinthesky]

Then I guess nothing has changed with rifles in the last 100 years then.

[ForwardBias]

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

Where have you been?
In the last twenty years, shotgun manufacturers have gone to over bored barrels, longer forcing cones, choke tubes, then longer choke tubes, adjustable combs, parallel combs, better recoil pads, more dedicated target models as opposed to using field guns all the time, synthetic stocks, camo stocks, gas semi's that can shoot light as well as heavy loads, more manufacturers to chose from, the list goes on and on!
Shotguns today as opposed to 20+ years ago have advanced leaps and bounds and I for one would hate to go back to shooting an old gun in competition rather than my new one, there's no comparison between the two!

May i add more left handed options, lighter models, and more alternatives to lead for water fowling.

[gopher]

Shotguns most certainly do group. At 13 yards with a full choke the affects can be seen.

[Quinn]

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

Then I guess nothing has changed with rifles in the last 100 years then.

I think we see things differently because I don't think they have. Better machining, but that's about it.

I have 30-50 year old guns that shoot amazingly well. Better then a lot of stuff they make today.

Bullet design, cartridge design, and some optics have improved.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Quinn

I think we see things differently because I don't think they have. Better machining, but that's about it.

I have 30-50 year old guns that shoot amazingly well. Better then a lot of stuff they make today.

Bullet design, cartridge design, and some optics have improved.

Whether or not you notice the changes in the last 30 years depends on what you are using your shotgun for, and what level you are shooting at. If you are only shooting upland birds, or shooting a round of trap now and then, you likely won't notice a difference. On the other hand, if you are shooting heavy steel waterfowl loads, the newer gas operated guns with innovations like kick off are more pleasant to shoot , and the new barrels will stand up to shooting steel better. If you are a high volume clays shooter, you will appreciate the backbored barrels and better removable choke tubes as well. And if you want to use the same gun for clays and waterfowl, the newer semi auto designs are much better at shooting both light target loads and heavy waterfowl loads without issues.

[bobinthesky]

Originally Posted by Quinn

I think we see things differently because I don't think they have. Better machining, but that's about it.

I have 30-50 year old guns that shoot amazingly well. Better then a lot of stuff they make today.

Bullet design, cartridge design, and some optics have improved.

I have 30 to 50 year old guns that shoot amazingly well too, better in fact than some newer ones. For occasional shooting and hunting that's fine but for thousands of rounds per year at the range, I still wouldn't trade my Beretta 692 for a 30 year old Superimposed or Bl-4, there's no comparison!

We agree to disagree.

[grouse_hunter]

All the guns brought up in the thread are reasonably priced. What about manufacturers like Purdeys, Holland & Holland, Peter Hofer, etc.
Regardless of the skill of the shooter, would you say that they are better than any of the 3 B's? If so, why?

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by grouse_hunter

All the guns brought up in the thread are reasonably priced. What about manufacturers like Purdeys, Holland & Holland, Peter Hofer, etc.
Regardless of the skill of the shooter, would you say that they are better than any of the 3 B's? If so, why?

I don't think they are better as far as accuracy or quality goes, but they are more expensive to produce fr the mot art because of the amount of hand fitting that goes into them .
I shoot a Westley ichards fr the late 1800's ad it is an amazingly built shotgun, the same as the W.R. Ten I used to own.
However, the same gun can be produced a lot cheaper these days with modern machining and production techniques.
Fausti for example, builds some guns that are fine pieces of equipment for about $4,000.00, but if you want their high end stuff it starts at $20,000 .
Better built? I doubt it, but fancier and more hand work.
You can also get Berreta for the price of a smaller house if you wanted to!
Cat

[jednastka]

I did interesting testwork a number of years ago. I got large sheets of paper (48"x48") and then drew a to-scale grouse in the center. From that center point, I drew a 30" diameter circle. The purpose of the circle was to determine whether the pattern created was centered or not. I stapled the paper to a plywood board, and set it out at 30 yards. We had 4 shotguns in the test. 1940s Winchester Model 12 in FC, 1950s Browning A-5 in FC, 1980s Mossberg 500 in FC, 1970s Remington 1100 in MC. All guns were 12 gauge.

Shooting from a bench, and taking careful, proper aim to ensure that the sight was properly aligned, all gun patterns were essentially perfectly centered. As expected, the MC Remington was the widest pattern, with a few pellets outside the 30" circle. What was intriguing was the differences in the FC guns! The Winchester had the tightest pattern by far, with all pellets within a circle of about 18", followed by the Mossberg at about 20" and the browning at about 24". This test led me to get old Cottle's Gunsmiths on Calgary Trail to ream the Winchester barrel out some, so it tested essentially MC.

The next step was more interesting. The gun owner stood with the gun in a carry position across their chest when someone yelled go and they took a snap shot at the target. Only the Winchester and the Browning shooters replicated their test bench patterns. We then tried this.

Stand with the gun across your chest. Close your eyes, then shoulder the gun. When you are comfortable with the feel, open your eyes and describe the shot picture. The Browning and Winchester shooters had a perfect sight picture. The Mossberg shooter found that he was holding the gun slightly twisted the receiver out to the right to see the front pin, essentially shooting to the right of a target and low, which was where his shot went. The Remington shooter (me) was centered, but looking down on the barrel, shooting high. This test replicated the actual shots taken. The fix was to raise the comb on the Winchester with padding, and re-stock the Remington with a lower comb stock.

The work we did convinced me that even with today's guns, shooting fit is far more important than price for accuracy ONLY. Price generally seems to be related to gun quality, hence reliability in the field, but not accuracy.

Vic

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by jednastka

I did interesting testwork a number of years ago. I got large sheets of paper (48"x48") and then drew a to-scale grouse in the center. From that center point, I drew a 30" diameter circle. The purpose of the circle was to determine whether the pattern created was centered or not. I stapled the paper to a plywood board, and set it out at 30 yards. We had 4 shotguns in the test. 1940s Winchester Model 12 in FC, 1950s Browning A-5 in FC, 1980s Mossberg 500 in FC, 1970s Remington 1100 in MC. All guns were 12 gauge.

Shooting from a bench, and taking careful, proper aim to ensure that the sight was properly aligned, all gun patterns were essentially perfectly centered. As expected, the MC Remington was the widest pattern, with a few pellets outside the 30" circle. What was intriguing was the differences in the FC guns! The Winchester had the tightest pattern by far, with all pellets within a circle of about 18", followed by the Mossberg at about 20" and the browning at about 24". This test led me to get old Cottle's Gunsmiths on Calgary Trail to ream the Winchester barrel out some, so it tested essentially MC.

The next step was more interesting. The gun owner stood with the gun in a carry position across their chest when someone yelled go and they took a snap shot at the target. Only the Winchester and the Browning shooters replicated their test bench patterns. We then tried this.

Stand with the gun across your chest. Close your eyes, then shoulder the gun. When you are comfortable with the feel, open your eyes and describe the shot picture. The Browning and Winchester shooters had a perfect sight picture. The Mossberg shooter found that he was holding the gun slightly twisted the receiver out to the right to see the front pin, essentially shooting to the right of a target and low, which was where his shot went. The Remington shooter (me) was centered, but looking down on the barrel, shooting high. This test replicated the actual shots taken. The fix was to raise the comb on the Winchester with padding, and re-stock the Remington with a lower comb stock.

The work we did convinced me that even with today's guns, shooting fit is far more important than price for accuracy ONLY. Price generally seems to be related to gun quality, hence reliability in the field, but not accuracy.

Vic

Of course you are correct about gun fit, but some people will always choose a shotgun based on appearance, brand name or price, with little thought given to whether the gun actually fits them.

[couleefolk]

Originally Posted by jednastka

I did interesting testwork a number of years ago. I got large sheets of paper (48"x48") and then drew a to-scale grouse in the center. From that center point, I drew a 30" diameter circle. The purpose of the circle was to determine whether the pattern created was centered or not. I stapled the paper to a plywood board, and set it out at 30 yards. We had 4 shotguns in the test. 1940s Winchester Model 12 in FC, 1950s Browning A-5 in FC, 1980s Mossberg 500 in FC, 1970s Remington 1100 in MC. All guns were 12 gauge.

Shooting from a bench, and taking careful, proper aim to ensure that the sight was properly aligned, all gun patterns were essentially perfectly centered. As expected, the MC Remington was the widest pattern, with a few pellets outside the 30" circle. What was intriguing was the differences in the FC guns! The Winchester had the tightest pattern by far, with all pellets within a circle of about 18", followed by the Mossberg at about 20" and the browning at about 24". This test led me to get old Cottle's Gunsmiths on Calgary Trail to ream the Winchester barrel out some, so it tested essentially MC.

The next step was more interesting. The gun owner stood with the gun in a carry position across their chest when someone yelled go and they took a snap shot at the target. Only the Winchester and the Browning shooters replicated their test bench patterns. We then tried this.

Stand with the gun across your chest. Close your eyes, then shoulder the gun. When you are comfortable with the feel, open your eyes and describe the shot picture. The Browning and Winchester shooters had a perfect sight picture. The Mossberg shooter found that he was holding the gun slightly twisted the receiver out to the right to see the front pin, essentially shooting to the right of a target and low, which was where his shot went. The Remington shooter (me) was centered, but looking down on the barrel, shooting high. This test replicated the actual shots taken. The fix was to raise the comb on the Winchester with padding, and re-stock the Remington with a lower comb stock.

The work we did convinced me that even with today's guns, shooting fit is far more important than price for accuracy ONLY. Price generally seems to be related to gun quality, hence reliability in the field, but not accuracy.

Vic

different guns fit different people. I have picked up 2 browning BPS, side by side in the store, one sight picture fit every time, the other was always off. I finally noticed after several tries, that the stocks were slightly different, and you can't just buy a used gun and expect it to fit like your buddies.

[saskbooknut]

Shotguns accuracy issues are a matter of shooting a pattern to point of aim.
For single barrel guns the issue is primarily whether the gunstock fits you, so that the gun shoots where you look. I suppose there are single barrel guns with barrels that are not straight, but I have never encountered one in all the major brand singles, pumps and semi-autos that I have owned.
For double barrel guns the additional problem is whether the two barrels are regulated to shoot to the same point of aim. Regulation of some cheap doubles is not so reliable.
When it comes to shooting a shotgun in the field, aiming a shotgun like a rifle is the kiss of death to performance.
Shotguns perform more like a hose, painting a pattern over your intended target.
The real key to shotgun accuracy is fit to the shooter's physical dimensions, so that the gun naturally follows the shooter's eyes to the place that the target will be.

[bobinthesky]

Over the counter guns will never fit everyone perfectly, they are built for the average male human body, whatever that is. Adjustable comb's have become exceptionally popular because they can fix a lot of fit issues for $3 or $400 bucks. I've always been fortunate that a lot of guns fit me fairly well and usually an adjustable comb can get the fit just right.
High end guns are almost without exception fit to the buyer. The builder uses what they call a "try gun", it's a real gun of the same model you are buying with a stock that can be adjusted for length of pull, cast on, cast off, etc. After shooting the gun and having that stock adjusted to you several times by a person who really knows what he is doing, the new stock is tailored to those dimensions that fit you. This is one of the reasons why high end guns cost a lot of money so in one regard, more expensive does get you more accuracy, in a round about way.

[oldgutpile]

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

Over the counter guns will never fit everyone perfectly, they are built for the average male human body, whatever that is. Adjustable comb's have become exceptionally popular because they can fix a lot of fit issues for $3 or $400 bucks. I've always been fortunate that a lot of guns fit me fairly well and usually an adjustable comb can get the fit just right.
High end guns are almost without exception fit to the buyer. The builder uses what they call a "try gun", it's a real gun of the same model you are buying with a stock that can be adjusted for length of pull, cast on, cast off, etc. After shooting the gun and having that stock adjusted to you several times by a person who really knows what he is doing, the new stock is tailored to those dimensions that fit you. This is one of the reasons why high end guns cost a lot of money so in one regard, more expensive does get you more accuracy, in a round about way.

THIS ^^^

I preach gun fit on every one of these threads. I have many "high-end" guns. Many of these, someone in the past paid to have them custom made to "their" dimensions, and if I am lucky, it is a close fit for me. The original owner gets to pay the piper, and I get to reap the rewards for a fraction when they get tired of them, or they come up in some estate sale!
I find that most Browning guns will fit me right off of the shelf, but danged if I have ever found a Beretta that works! Different fit. Both offer good quality, but one fits better.
Another great advantage today, over the guns of yester-year, is the advance of choke tubes. I'm not sure how many people reading this even bother to "pattern" their shotguns. I have seen major differences with different quality tubes, and even just between different tubes of the same make. If you have never done so, try standing back at around the 30 yard mark, and shoot a paper (I actually use old cardboard) target. See how well your choke performs on a thirty inch circle. If you find "holes" in your patterns, change up the chokes and see what difference it can make. The brand of ammo will make a major difference, and for reloaders, wad selection will play a role.

[bobtodrick]

I too think that the money in the better shotguns goes into fit and finish, and maybe the ability to tailor the fit better.
A couple of years ago I wanted to get an O/U to give skeet/trap a go.
Didn't want to spend a fortune so ended up with a Baikal O/U, a tad under $500 all in.
Russian.
Built like a T-34 tank.
It isn't pretty, but has a reputation of being overbuilt to the point of being nearly indestructible.
Went out with a friend who is an excellent trap shooter and who has some might fine guns. On this day he took out his Beretta Silver Pigeon.
Let's just say that I was dismal...first time out and hit, 3 or 4 out of 20 clays.
My pal nailed 19/20.
But then he tried my Baikal. Took a 1/2 dozen practice shots and then proceed to do 17/20. Told me the Baikal (at about 1/8 the cost of his Beretta) was a pretty good 'shooter'.
A year and a half later and I still am not shooting to the capability of the gun

[Okotokian]

Lots of reasons a person may want to pay more for a shotgun, but I've not heard "straighter barrel" mentioned before. It's a smooth tube. Not that much to go wrong. Chokes? Sure, but you can buy better ones and drop them into your Hatsan, 870, or whatever. Don't be blaming your cheap gun for missing those birds. LOL

I've owned Beretta, Winchester, and Weatherby, and miss equally well with all of them.

[Quinn]

Originally Posted by bobinthesky

I have 30 to 50 year old guns that shoot amazingly well too, better in fact than some newer ones. For occasional shooting and hunting that's fine but for thousands of rounds per year at the range, I still wouldn't trade my Beretta 692 for a 30 year old Superimposed or Bl-4, there's no comparison!

We agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Whether or not you notice the changes in the last 30 years depends on what you are using your shotgun for, and what level you are shooting at. If you are only shooting upland birds, or shooting a round of trap now and then, you likely won't notice a difference. On the other hand, if you are shooting heavy steel waterfowl loads, the newer gas operated guns with innovations like kick off are more pleasant to shoot , and the new barrels will stand up to shooting steel better. If you are a high volume clays shooter, you will appreciate the backbored barrels and better removable choke tubes as well. And if you want to use the same gun for clays and waterfowl, the newer semi auto designs are much better at shooting both light target loads and heavy waterfowl loads without issues.

See, I've got the 690 and couldn't be troubled to pay the extra 1000$ for the 692 for longer FC's and a trigger I'm not likely to move or remove. My 690 has the B-fast stock.

I got it this spring and have just shy of 4000 rounds on the gun. Next year I hope to shoot it more. All sporting clays and 5stand. That said, guys do just fine with the same amount of rounds on a mid 90's Browning or a quality 680/682E. Beretta will sell you on that 690/692 as being the next best thing when in reality, the 682 vs 690/692 hasn't changed much. To sell more guns, manufactures look for little things to market. Action size, FC, chokes, etc in recent years are the things they push to make it seem like the new model is 100x better then the last. I don't think it is. Here is where new shooters can find a gun that's older, well taken care of, still fits fine, and has years upon years of good life left in it.

I do appreciate the semi's though as I can easily shoot target loads or hunting loads without adjustment for clays, shooting competitions, and hunting.

I guess I just feel a lot of people fall for advertising and marketing of pretty minor things. It's gotten a lot worse in recent years.

[bobinthesky]

I'm not trying to talk you in or out of anything other than the fact that there's been lots of changes to shotguns over the last 20+ years albeit a lot of them are small changes, but that's how firearm technology usually advances, there really hasn't been any really big news in guns in many years.

[wwbirds]

Heading to Taber tomorrow with 20 gauges and although my partner can afford anything he wants you would have a tough time getting his BL 4 away from him. I waited and scrimped and saved for an SP5 for many years and it will be with me until the kids inherit it. We feel if it isn't broke we dont have to fix it (or shop around)

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Heading to Taber tomorrow with 20 gauges and although my partner can afford anything he wants you would have a tough time getting his BL 4 away from him. I waited and scrimped and saved for an SP5 for many years and it will be with me until the kids inherit it. We feel if it isn't broke we dont have to fix it (or shop around)

I know the feeling. I shoot modern higher tech target shotguns, but for pheasant and upland birds, I default to my old school AYA number 2 SxS in 28 gauge. After using it for all of my hunting so far this year, it just feels right, and the birds keep falling.

[wwbirds]

and the birds keep falling

Gauge, shot size, choke, barrel length, brand and any of those other questions dont matter if it fits and the birds keep falling. As Cat has been known to say none fly away with pellets in the head.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by wwbirds

Gauge, shot size, choke, barrel length, brand and any of those other questions dont matter if it fits and the birds keep falling. As Cat has been known to say none fly away with pellets in the head.

It is a bonus if the gun is light to carry, 5-1/2 to 6 lbs works for me. I am getting too old to carry a heavy shotgun.