# 3 1/2 vs 3" vs 2 3/4



## deadicated1 (Mar 17, 2008)

hey i know this is kind of random, but not enough of us post in waterfowl, so i was reading through some old topics, and a couple of people were talking about how 3 1/2's dont hit harder than the other, smaller shells. i may be mistaken, but i thought they do. with a rifle, you multiply the grains(weight of the bullet) and the speed and you get ft/lbs energy downrange. is this not true with shotguns? i dont want to argue, but just get my facts straight. cuz with a 3 1/2, you can shoot heavier loads then the others, and have the same speeds, so wouldn't that mean they hit harder? i guess overall its kind of a mental thing, by shooting a bigger shell, guys have more confidence, but they also said in the post i was reading that its a common misunderstanding among waterfowlers that they hit harder. any feedback?


----------



## travis madden (Sep 29, 2007)

If you shoot em at 20 yds locked up comin at ya it doesnt matter


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

dont matter one bit really....you have to hit them first, and at a responsble range.

this past season my son and i shot 2 3/4, 1 1/8 oz, steel #4s, mod choke-12ga, exclusivley at ducks over decoys. we/i didnt notice much if _any_ change in "dead in the air before they hit the deck" performance from the season before when we used only 3 1/2 4s. pattern test a few different brands, loads ect to see whats best in your particular set up.

Travis, THAT is a FACT! ... "Shoot em in the lips and the wings will follow". :mrgreen:


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

The comparison of total load of shot, vs. bullet weight doesn't work. 

With rifles, bullet weight times velocity gives "knockdown power." (Force=Mass X Acceleration).

With a shotgun, the appropriate comparison would be with each individual BB - not the total weight of the load. So with a 3" shell with 1/4 ounce more shot, you will have more BBs than in the 2 3/4" shell, but each BB will have the same "knockdown power" (if speed is the same.)

The longer shells give two things: First - more powder and second, more BBs. More powder can equal more speed, and more BBs means more chances you might hit the target. But pattern size changes very little with the larger loads. What does change is pattern density, which could equal more solid hits. 

I don't hunt waterfowl - but I upland game hunt. I've not found enough advantage of 3" over 2 3/4" to justify the difference in costs. 3 or even 3 1/2" shells will never substitute for practice in making clean shots.


----------



## woollybugger (Oct 13, 2007)

I gotta chime in on this. Folks, a #4 steel pellet is a #4 steel pellet, no matter what it came from. A 3 1/2" 12 gauge, or a 2 3/4" 20 gauge, shooting the same size pellets, at the same muzzle velocity the pellet that strikes the bird will have the same energy. The larger shell has one big advantage: payload. More pellets = more hits on the bird = better kills. Also, the same sized payload can be driven at higher velocities in the larger shell than the smaller shell of equal load size (i.e., a 1 1/8 oz 2.75" shell at 1375 fps, vs. a 1 1/8 oz 3" shell at 1550 fps.) The higher velocity has more effect at closer ranges. The long shots (past 50 yards), shouldn't be taken with steel no matter what the shot size or velocity, in my opinion. The bottom line is this: pattern your gun for the range that you will be shooting. 2.75" shells work great for decoy shooting.The 3 1/2" Roman candles give you an edge in pellet count or velocity when you can't (won't) decoy'em. I don't have any 3 1/2" guns, yet.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks WB. You said what I was trying to say. You just said it better. Thanks.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

what they both said... :lol:


----------



## gunrunner (Feb 1, 2008)

I think the misconception is that with a 3 1/2 load you get a bigger pattern, because of the added BB's vs a 2 3/4 load. It does not change the overall size of the pattern with more BB's. It gives you a longer shot string, but not a wider pattern. I feel the 3 1/2 loads have fueled the "sky bustering" attitude....Hey if I got a bigger shell I can shoot out there even farther.....


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I shoot 2 3/4 number 2's and I dont have a proublom killing ducks. Im allso only shoting ducks and 35 yards and less. I have tryed number 3's and They did the samething as the number 2's. I shoot 3 1/2 bb at geese and dont have a proublom. Imn going to try number 2's this year for geese. I think 3 1/2 are to much for ducks at close range. like said befor shoot them in the lips and you wont have any proubloms no matter what size of shell you are shooting.


----------



## woollybugger (Oct 13, 2007)

My last goose was killed with a 1 oz load of #3 steel (reload) at a distance of about 25 yards. Dead in the air, but, at twice that distance I wouldn't even think of pulling the trigger with that load. The proper shell to use can change in a matter of seconds, literally! Greater canadas crossing at 55-60 yards - you had better be toting a howitzer (aka 3 1/2" mag :wink: ) cupped at 20-25 yards, any fast load of #3 or larger shot out of any 20 or 12 gauge will anchor them on the spot. Get'em close!


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm no technical person and Deadicated, I know you PMed me. Here's about the only answer I can give you. I shoot a Remi 870 with Kent 3 inch #2's. I used to shoot Kent #4's.... just didn't like the number of cripples i got, so I switched to Kent #2's. Blam.... good things happen. Late in the season, money is a little tight so I'm shooting junk from Walmart, specifically Xperts, once in a GREAT long while, some Federal steel and of course, all they have left is 2's or 4's in a 2 3/4 inch shell. My shells spent on cripples jumped, like a toe-shot jackrabbit. I jumpshoot a lot late season, shooting big tough late season puddlers. It took me from shooting possibly doubles and triples to shooting singles and walking a lot further to get my birds. Shooting on ice or open water was even worse. For me, it wasn't a good trade. For others that are decoying ducks in their face and have no issues with their shells, maybe 2 3/4 works for them. I honestly can say it doesnt' cut it for me. I think thats what it comes down to... you can run performance numbers until you're blue in the face but if you're not convinced it makes a difference then shoot what you have confidence in. If you're not confident you can make the shot and knock em dead, then shooting a SXS both barrels at the same time loaded up with hevishot isn't going to give you performance you're looking for. I don't have the techie answers you're probably wanting to give you a rock solid, no doubt about it answer... my choice is personal preference based on my own experiences. If you want to ask somebody that has tried pretty much everything under the sun and isn't going to just give you X brand in X length is best because "thats what I shoot" then PM Bugdoc, either here or on the Refuge forums, refugeforums.com, and ask him what his tests have shown. He's one guy who actually has test data to back up what he thinks is a good answer.


----------



## deadicated1 (Mar 17, 2008)

thanks for the input. i agree with garyfish and wollybugger. when i was younger, and not as good a shot, i liked the 3 1/2 cuz it gave me confidence knowing i had more bb's out there. also, i agree that bigger bullets dont make up for lack of practice. I shoot about 4 boxes of skeet each week, and i know where my range is for ducks. Travis- i would like to have ducks at 20 yards all day, but i do a lot of different kinds of hunting. we do a lot of jump shooting, and pass shooting, which sometimes call for longer shots. i am no skybuster, and dislike all who do, but i like a little extra wackage at those birds that wont quite come all the way. i never have patterned my gun at certain distances because i never really have consistent spots i hunt. in a given week during the season, i hunt about 4-5 different senarios and the distances of my shooting changes with each. keep the thoughts coming...


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

I mostly use 3" 3's for most of my shooting, I like Kents the best, but shoot a lot of Xperts, I grab them up on clearance at Wally world. I don't have any trouble with killing ducks dead when I do my part. I will shoot 2's, 1's, or vary rarely 4's but prefer the #3 size overall.

I like to use 3 1/2" when goose hunting simply because I mostly use the BBB's and like all the pellets I can get in the air.

I occasionally will shoot some Kent's 3 1/2" 1's in the late season cause I like them for that extra little whoomp, and of course if I run out of the other loads I will shoot what ever I have left in my shell bag. :wink: Getting down to the Dead Coyote loads makes for an expensive duck. :shock: 

I don't shot a lot of 2 3/4" loads because I usually don't find them on clearance, which is where I buy most of my duck loads now.


----------



## Donttreadonme (Sep 11, 2007)

woollybugger said:


> I gotta chime in on this. *Folks, a #4 steel pellet is a #4 steel pellet, no matter what it came from. A 3 1/2" 12 gauge, or a 2 3/4" 20 gauge, shooting the same size pellets, at the same muzzle velocity the pellet that strikes the bird will have the same energy. *The larger shell has one big advantage: payload. *More pellets = more hits on the bird = better kills.* Also, the same sized payload can be driven at higher velocities in the larger shell than the smaller shell of equal load size (i.e., a 1 1/8 oz 2.75" shell at 1375 fps, vs. a 1 1/8 oz 3" shell at 1550 fps.) The higher velocity has more effect at closer ranges. The long shots (past 50 yards), shouldn't be taken with steel no matter what the shot size or velocity, in my opinion. The bottom line is this: pattern your gun for the range that you will be shooting. 2.75" shells work great for decoy shooting.The 3 1/2" Roman candles give you an edge in pellet count or velocity when you can't (won't) decoy'em. I don't have any 3 1/2" guns, yet.


WB has hit the nail on the head especially with the parts I put in bold text.

I am moving completely away from 3.5" shells. I switched from 3" to 2 3/4" for ducks last season with no diminished results. This season I will only be shooting the 3.5" shells I have left over on geese. Once they are gone I will only shoot 3". 3.5's are a waist of money IMO.

If you want more range out of a shell, go with a bigger shot size. #2 @ 1550 out of a 2 3/4" shell will have the exact same range as a #2 @ 1550 out of a 3.5" shell. The only way to get more "knockdown" is to either get a faster load or larger shot.


----------



## Duurty1 (Sep 10, 2007)

i shoot 3 and 3.5 it all depends where i am hunting. i shoot an ic choke so out to 40 yards i get a lot more pellet density with the 3.5. patterning your gun is everything. i have a nova and super nova and kents pattern better out of the nova but remingtons pattern better out of the super. i got horible patterns with both federals and winchesters


----------



## deadicated1 (Mar 17, 2008)

maybe i should do a little patterning. contrary to most, i actually really like X-perts, mostly cuz they were like $12 a box for 3 1/2 at cabelas all last season. but i actually shot pretty well with them too. ill see what works best out of my gun, but i may have to go to 3" next fall just with all the price increases lately :evil: -)O(-


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

deadicated1 said:


> maybe i should do a little patterning. *contrary to most, i actually really like X-perts, mostly cuz they were like $12 a box for 3 1/2 at cabelas *all last season. but i actually shot pretty well with them too. *ill see what works best out of my gun,* but i may have to go to 3" next fall just with all the price increases lately :evil: -)O(-


I'm guessing that has a lot to do with why so many guys think they're a good load, whether they'd admit it publicly or not. 8) Using your bullet theory, a round pellet is going to fly better and perform better in the air than random chunks of whatever stuffed in a shotshell right?? Cut open one of those Xpert shells sometime.... Its pretty interesting to see what ammo companies package up for a consumer to use as a lethal projectile. I shot 3 1/2's a couple times... and its not enough of a difference in killing efficiency for me to carry them for anything. I'd rather spend more for a harder hitting load if I'm pursuing geese than shoot a 3 1/2 for 3 1/2's sake. The second bold part of your post is pretty much what it comes down to if you want the most efficient load for YOU to kill ducks/geese or whatever else. Shotguns and duck loads are like folks and their personal preferences... just different strokes for different folks. If I'd have talked to Bugdoc sooner, I'd have stocked up on tons of TM before the price shot up on Tungsten.


----------



## deadicated1 (Mar 17, 2008)

> Cut open one of those Xpert shells sometime.... Its pretty interesting to see what ammo companies package up for a consumer to use as a lethal projectile.


 ill do it and see what i find, but one argument about that is what i found in a shell of heavi-shot. my buddy cut one open once and all the pellets were mis-shapen and even stuck together. some were even like a size bb and a size 6 or 4 stuck to it. some people said that helps it do more damage on impact, but you would think one of the most expensive, highly promoted brands of shell would be more uniformly round for better flight...


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

Bottom Line is just get the birds in close and you dont have to worry about the brand your shooting or shot size. Pluse it not the shell that killing the ducks it the shooter.


----------



## silverkitten73 (Sep 20, 2007)

Not that I want to steal any thunder from this discussion - but it doesn't matter what size shell you are shooting at birds that are in range. When I have a flock of mallards locked on my decoys at 15-20 yards my sons .410 will kill them. My other son drops geese with his .20 gauge routinely if they are in range. The discussion for shells effectiveness comes when you are talking about shooting at birds that are on the brink of being out of range. The benefit of shooting a 3.5" shell is that you get a little more powder and more shot, which is going to give the shooter a slight advantage on a longer shot. I personally think that the heavier 3.5" shells like Hevi shot are deadly on waterfowl if the shooter has experience shooting heavier and slower rounds. Fast shooting loads are great but they loose a lot of speed realitivly fast when coming out of a barrel. Study your shells ballastics and you will see what I am talking about.

As mentioned earlier - hunters need to pattern their guns. I also think a hunter can shoot better if they have confidence in their shells. I consistently shoot better, no matter which gun if I am shooting Kent, Estate, or Hevi Shot. I have alot of faith in these three brands. I also shoot at least a case per season of Kent or Estate so I have a lot of experience with them.

Hevi-shot and other similar brands have developed their shot to be cylindrical in design so it flies straight when shot. Do not be concerned with the shape of the pellets. They work great and are very deadly.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

silverkitten73 said:


> I personally think that the heavier 3.5" shells like Hevi shot are deadly on waterfowl if the shooter has experience shooting heavier and slower rounds. Fast shooting loads are great but they loose a lot of speed realitivly fast when coming out of a barrel. Study your shells ballastics and you will see what I am talking about.
> 
> As mentioned earlier - hunters need to pattern their guns. I also think a hunter can shoot better if they have confidence in their shells. I consistently shoot better, no matter which gun if I am shooting Kent, Estate, or Hevi Shot. I have alot of faith in these three brands. I also shoot at least a case per season of Kent or Estate so I have a lot of experience with them.


Just for discussions sake, are you referring to learning the right lead and distance at which the heavy loads can be effective?? I'm just curious about that. Also, about Estates, weren't you the one last year that posted about them having pretty much the same performance results as your Kents, only burning a bit more dirty out of your shotgun?? Leaving more residue for cleaning and things like that?? I'm wondering because looking through a bunch of ammunition sites, I found some Estates for a steal and if they'll perform similar to the Kents I shoot now, then I wouldn't mind picking up a bunch. I clean my old 870 a bunch, don't mind getting it filthy though and would definitely look into shooting some Estates if folks who shoot them like the results.



dkhntrdstn said:


> Bottom Line is just get the birds in close and you dont have to worry about the brand your shooting or shot size. Pluse it not the shell that killing the ducks it the shooter.


I don't buy the "any shell will work" theory at all.... maybe thats how folks who will just shoot whatever justify it to gain a buck or two but I don't think that with all the good choices out there on the market, it has much practical application for the modern hunter..... otherwise, ammunition manufacturers wouldn't be striving to obtain "perfect round ball" standards from the shot they load into their hulls, looking for quicker, cleaner burning powders, and obtaining that "heavier than lead density" level with new base materials and alloys for guys that expect a little more from the product they spend their money on. Lets be blunt...if you want to kill ducks based on the performance of your shot, you want the best there is available. True, any shooter might kill a few ducks every season shooting Walmart specials but if they wanted to optimize their numbers and performance during the course of a season they wouldn't turn down the chance to shoot a higher quality load. Walmart is well priced if you just want to grab and go, but they're not known for selling high end product. If shotshell performance didn't matter, the market wouldn't be flooded with improvements in shotshell technology. People would kill just as many ducks with old paper hulls and melted down leftover tire weights as shot in their shells right?? I don't know that anyone who stops and thinks about that for a second would believe it to be the case. I do think practice matters but I also think getting the best shell you can afford and spending the time to match the best patterning shells to your particular shotgun will serve most folks better than going to the marsh with the thought that they can shoot whatever and be just as effective as somebody who's done a little work to arm themselves with the right loads for the conditions.


----------



## hamernhonkers (Sep 28, 2007)

One thing many people miss when comparing these shell lengths is recoil. The heavier and faster a load the greater the recoil. Most people actually began to shoot worse with the 3 1/2" shells because of the recoil. 

Round shot because of the greater amount of surface area creates more drag so it slows down faster and requires more speed to be lethal. That's the reason the manufacturer's keep lengthening shells and trying for faster loads. The only way to truly increase range is to use a denser shot like hevi, hevi steel, tss ect. 

The faster you launch a round object the faster it loses speed. Even by increasing the speed of a load of steel by 200 fps you only gain about 3 to 6 yards on average of increased range. Then you are increasing recoil again. Again the way to increase range is to increase shot size or density.

The taller and narrower you make a shot column the longer the shot string. This means less pellets on target at once. The 2 3/4" shell will give you a shorter shot string and put more pellets on target at the same time increasing the amount of energy transfer to the target giving you the (hit that bird like a ton of bricks) appearance. 

If you are wanting to increase the pellet count and speed with out losing the short shot string you need to increase the diameter of the shot column. In other words the 12 gauge 31/2" shell is just a great marketing gimmick that way to many people have bought into. Take some time on the patterning board and learn what steel 2 3/4" and 3" shells can do. If you don't like the results start looking into a denser shot type. If that is not what you want to do and want still want to increase your payload and speed with steel look at getting a 10 gauge.


----------



## deadicated1 (Mar 17, 2008)

ok, so all these posts are not getting me anywhere..first off, let me just say that i shot over 3 cases of steel last season, and i am already sold on the products that i like and have proven effective time and time again. so im not here asking what load i should pick, or shoot or any of that. sorry if it may have sounded like that. i just want to have my facts straight on the science and physics part of it all. some of you are saying that nothing hits harder than the other;bigger and faster isn't necessarily better, not advantageous to shoot 3 1/2", etc. hamernhonkers just said you dont need 3 1/2", adn that 2 3/4 is a better pattern on the target, but then also said to get a 10 gague to increase speed and payload. maybe im missing the point, but what else changes besides the number of pellets in moving on up the ruler with my 12 gague, or moving to a ten? maybe this is all redundant, but then again, i am even more dense than the loads you are all talking so highly of :roll:


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

If you can shoot 3 1/2 out of your gun then that what i would do. those do the same as the ten ga and there cheaper.I would not shoot the 3 1/2 at ducks in less you do a lot of pass shooting.


----------



## silverkitten73 (Sep 20, 2007)

River - I don't remember saying that - but I do remember saying that Remington Hevi-shot was very dirty stuff to shoot. In answer to your question about Estate - I like them better than Kent. I think Kent makes a great product - but I think Estate packs a little more whallop in their shell. But that is my personal observation. 

If you have a good lead on some good prices on Estate - would you mind dropping me a PM and sharing the knowledge with me.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

silverkitten73 said:


> River - I don't remember saying that - but I do remember saying that Remington Hevi-shot was very dirty stuff to shoot. In answer to your question about Estate - I like them better than Kent. I think Kent makes a great product - but I think Estate packs a little more whallop in their shell. But that is my personal observation.
> 
> If you have a good lead on some good prices on Estate - would you mind dropping me a PM and sharing the knowledge with me.


Hmmm perhaps it wasn't you.... I just remember PMing with somebody last year about it and reading it on one of these type topics. I'll PM you with what I found. Seems like nobody wants the stuff for some reason so its always in stock and seems to be pretty dang cheap.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

actually dustin the 10ga will pattern ALOT better given the same load/size of shot verses the 3 1/2 12ga. the heavy for gauge loads in the 3 1/2 12ga tend to "string" quite badly... altough this can be beneficial to a shooter that is just a bit ahead/behind from center mass of his/her intended target.

speaking of my beloved 10ga...i wonder what this new 1350fps 1 5/16oz *T*'s load will do to decoy shy geese :twisted:


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Longgun said:


> speaking of my beloved 10ga...i wonder what this new 1350fps 1 5/16oz *T*'s load will do to decoy shy geese :twisted:


It will simply kill them&#8230;&#8230;.hard. 8)

I have an Ithaca Mag-10 and a SP-10; both kick a lot less than most 12 gauges with 3 ½" shells, it may have something to do with the weight difference of those guns or the fact they are gas operated autos, most likely it's a combination of the two.

My Xtrema 2 with a kick-off system doesn't kick much with 3 ½" loads; it's a lot friendlier to my body than my trusty old SBE, or my 870. :shock:

As for patterning better than the 12's it depends on my guns, and what loads, my 10's do a better job with the T's or old F shot size than the 12's ever could especially at longer range.

You should the patterns my Ithaca throws out with #6 turkey loads :shock: , poor old turkeys don't have a chance, :twisted: too bad it's so heavy, I don't carry it much anymore.


----------



## bug doc (Apr 19, 2008)

This is my first post on this forum, but I recognize most of the names from the old DWR forum (and elsewhere). I received a PM about this post, and I thought I'd add my two cents.

Bagging ducks isn't rocket science. All you have to do is hit a vital organ or break a flight bone. About 1/3 of a duck's body can be considered 'vital area' (head, neck, spine, heart, primary flight bones, etc...), and a hit to that area will bring it down. To ensure that a vital spot is hit, you want at least 4 pellets to hit the bird (more is better). That translates into a minimum 100 well-spaced hits in a 30" circle for mallard-sized birds and about 140 for smaller ducks. If your load/choke combination won't hold that minimum pattern density at the ranges you're shooting, you are almost certainly crippling birds that should have been bagged. Although bigger shells do throw more shot, they don't always pattern better. The only way to know what _your_ gun/choke/load will do is shoot some paper.

Getting sufficient pellets on target is only half the problem. The other half is getting adequate penetration to take out the vital organ being hit. That may not be a problem if you happen to hit the bird in the head, but if a pellet has to traverse the width or length of a bird to reach the vitals, penetration becomes paramount. I won't bore you all with the details, but back in the 70's tests on live mallards showed that a minimum 235 ft.lbs. per square inch of energy density was needed to kill mallards 95% of the time (Energy density is a relative measure of penetrative capability). Here's some quick numbers to show how popular steel loads stack up (the numbers represent the yardage at which the individual pellets drop below 235 ft.lbs./in2).

Size 1300fps 1550fps
#4 - 28 yds - 34 yds
#3 - 32 yds - 39 yds
#2 - 37 yds - 44 yds
#1 - 42 yds - 49 yds

(taken from http://www.deltawaterfowl.org/magazine/ ... ng_DB.html )

This data was calculated at sea level, so here at 4000+ feet you can add about 5 yds or so extra range. If you stay within the range limits outlined above, you won't have any problems crippling birds due to inadequate penetration. If you ensure your pattern density meets the minimum requirements, you won't have any problem crippling birds due to insufficient pellet strikes. Now all you have to do is actually hit the bird (sorry, I can't help you with that problem :wink: ).


----------



## deadicated1 (Mar 17, 2008)

thanks for the info bugdoc. it helps me to see info and facts rather than opinions. ill get out and shoot up some paper in the next couple weeks. oh, and dont worry, i dont have any trouble hitting ducks 8)


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

nice post bugdoc, great link too. 

...and welcome "back" 8)


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

Mojo1 said:


> Longgun said:
> 
> 
> > speaking of my beloved 10ga...i wonder what this new 1350fps 1 5/16oz *T*'s load will do to decoy shy geese :twisted:
> ...


thats not a pattern its a SKULL HUNTING *SWARM* 8) :mrgreen:

.


----------

