PDA

View Full Version : 2 3/4" Extrema2?


wacki
April 7, 2006, 03:51 PM
I want a good semi-auto for clays and I'm considering the Extrema2 which is only chambered for 3 1/2". Most target loads are 2 3/4" and I know those aren't powerful enough to cycle browning 3 1/2" autos. What do I need to do to the gun to fire target loads?

duckcallinfool
April 9, 2006, 01:00 PM
I have an extrema and it will cycle the lightest 2 3/4's flawlessly. I have yet to find a load that will not cycle in this gun.

BUCKMARK
April 9, 2006, 07:35 PM
While I do not like 3 1/2" chambers on clay guns ... The Extrema II guns seem to work well with light clay loads. I would go with a 391 Sporting 3" chamber, but if I had to shoot a 3 1/2" gun it would be the Extrema II.

wacki
April 10, 2006, 09:15 PM
While I do not like 3 1/2" chambers on clay guns ... The Extrema II guns seem to work well with light clay loads. I would go with a 391 Sporting 3" chamber, but if I had to shoot a 3 1/2" gun it would be the Extrema II.

That a Teknys/Ulrika or something else?

psycho nut
April 10, 2006, 10:10 PM
They're made by Beretta.

duckcallinfool
April 12, 2006, 09:30 AM
Wacki,

I am guessing that Buckmark is referring to the 391 Urika. A nice gun but my father-in-laws packs quite a punch even with the target loads. My Extrema with target loads kicks less than my 870 20 ga. Wingmaster pump does with target loads. If I can ever get my wife to shoot the Extrema she might even enjoy shooting clays.

BUCKMARK
April 13, 2006, 08:00 PM
Yeah, I was refering to the 391 Urika series. I think Beretta makes 2 or 3 different sporting models. 391 Urika Sporting, 391 Teknys sporting and 391 gold sporting.

All of them have the 3" chamber instead of the 3.5"

If your clay gun is going to double as a hunting gun, the Extrema makes sense. But the 391 is a better gun for strictly clay shooting.

IMHO unless you hunt geese, there is no reason for a 3.5" gun.

Kato_Guy
April 14, 2006, 12:34 AM
do the auto loaders (like the extrema 2) that are chambered up to 3.5 inch cycle even the 2 3/4 low brass cheap walmart amo??

wacki
April 14, 2006, 02:09 AM
IMHO unless you hunt geese, there is no reason for a 3.5" gun.

Just curious why do you say this? Also is 3.5" too big for home defense?

BUCKMARK
April 14, 2006, 08:32 AM
First off, I'm just a redneck from the backwoods of Pa. not a shotgun expert by any means. I'm just going by what I learned hunting over the years.

Back in the day you had 2 3/4" loads and the 3" magnum. The next step up was a 10 gauge in 3".

The older fellas were killing turkey with 2 3/4" guns cause thats what they had. The 3" magnum was also good for turkeys and better for geese.

Then they changed the laws for hunting waterfowl...no lead.

Steel shot weighs less than lead, and hits with less force. I was shooting geese with 3" steel at 30-40 yards and not killing them. IMHO steel sucks! Now for mallards, wood ducks and other smaller ducks... 3" steel would work.

The 3.5" gun came out, and that worked much better for hunting geese using steel shot.

When Bismuth and Hevi-Shot came out... many of us quit using steel. A 3" load of Hevi-Shot hits harder than a 3.5" loading of steel.

With todays ammo, a 3" gun is plenty for turkeys or geese...unless you are shooting steel shot.

If you can't kill a turkey with a 3" load of #6 shot, you need to quit buying bigger guns and learn how to call turkeys. I have killed 13 ( 5 gobblers) with 2 3/4" and 3" magnums...never a 3.5". All from 20-35 yards.

If you are buying a gun to hunt turkey, geese and small game, along with clays... and you plan on using lead, steel, and Hevi-Shot... then a 3.5" gun makes sense. But if you are not, a 3" gun is all you need. Anything more just costs more and kicks the crap out of you. You can hunt deer with a .338 Win Mag...but I'll stick to my .308.

My HD shotgun is loaded with 2 3/4" 000 buck.

This is just the way I feel about it. Others will disagree, which is why they make so many different guns.

Regards,
Buckmark

oletymer
April 14, 2006, 01:26 PM
Wacki, after reading a number of your posts I think you should consider not owning a gun. Collectively they are really dumb posts.

FirstFreedom
April 15, 2006, 12:28 PM
Very well said, Buckmark. Get a 3" gun guys - it will cycle light 2.75s better than a 3 and 1/2 gun, esp. in adverse weather/conditions. No need for 3.5s for anything really.

Savage10FP308
April 15, 2006, 02:34 PM
A friend of mine has an Extrema II and it will fire 2 3/4 just fine so my answer to your question is that you would have to do nothing to it for it to reliably cycle 2 3/4.
As to some of the comments on 3 in, why would you limit yourself? If the gun he wants will reliably cycle 2 3/4 which is what he will be using then why would he not want the Extrema II? It will handle everything and is a great shotgun to boot. Get what you want and have fun! Best of luck to you on whatever you choose.:D

duckcallinfool
April 17, 2006, 11:26 AM
Kato guy,

Yes, the Extrema will reliably cycle 2 3/4 target loads. I have shot more target loads through mine than heavy loads. Simply because one would have to be a truly lousy shot to shoot 100 rounds a day at waterfowl when you have a 6 bird limit. It is easy to shoot 100 targets in just an hour or two. I did it Saturday night in 1 1/2 hours as a matter of fact.

dairyland
April 25, 2006, 03:25 AM
Wacki - Yes the Xtrema 2 will cycle 2-3/4" loads just fine. I bought mine (w/ KO) nearly four weeks ago and I've gone through about 500+ rounds of 2-3/4", 3 dram eq., 1-1/8 oz., #7-1/2 with no problems. I've also shot a few (~25) of my wife's 2-3/4", 2-3/4 dram eq., 1-1/8 oz., #8 with no problems either. So far I have only shot trap with this gun, but I plan on using it for hunting as well. If you're looking for a shotgun with the least amount of perceived recoil, this is it. As I describe it, "It doesn't kick, it's a little push." HOWEVER, the number one consideration when buying ANY gun is personal fit and feel. Be sure it fits you well. Do plenty of research, and compare the fit and feel of anything you might consider buying.

Steve Morgan
April 25, 2006, 10:15 AM
I had one of the first Extremas and found out an interesting thing.... The overbored barrel must have let some of the pressure go around my wad because my target loads chronographed 1250 fps out of my 391 and Browning XS and were only 1080 fps out of the Extrema. That's 170 fps slower!

I shot the gun well and it really was easy on the shoulder. It did make me wonder if the mild recoil was due to the slow velocity.:confused:

Has anybody chronographed their Extema2?

dairyland
April 25, 2006, 10:32 AM
Steve - Very interesting observation. I just got my chronograph 2 weeks ago. I've only used it with my son's .300 WSM so far, but it would be interesting to see what the results are with my Xtrema 2. My wife also has the Teknys Gold Field w/ Optima bore. I'll clock her's too. Unfortunately, we don't have another non-Optima bore 12 ga. to compare the same loads to. I'll have to find one to borrow at the club.

---------------------
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. - Ben Franklin