PDA

View Full Version : Is a Camo shotgun really worth it?


Nick9130White
January 13, 2011, 05:47 PM
Is a Camo shotgun really worth the extra money? I have a Remington 870 and it's wood. I'm not a huge fan of Camo shotguns, but if it's better i might change my mind.

BigJimP
January 13, 2011, 05:52 PM
what do you mean better .....better for what ...??? I don't understand your question ....

Nick9130White
January 13, 2011, 06:02 PM
Oh, my mistake. Better for hunting.

Death from Afar
January 13, 2011, 06:04 PM
I'm not convinced. Firslt, it is movement that scares animals and secondly, there are a lot of lost camo shotguns " WHere did i leave that thing...oh...."

BigJimP
January 13, 2011, 06:11 PM
better for what kind of hunting ....??

Turkey, Ducks, Geese ....yes, camo is a factor / just like clothing is a factor.

For Deer - no, it won't matter a bit.

For upland birds - Pheasant, Grouse, Quail - No, it won't matter a bit....

But you can tape up a receiver and barrel / to make it less bright ...and a dull stock wood finish on an 870 isn't ever a problem for ducks or geese.

hardworker
January 13, 2011, 06:14 PM
I'll put it this way. It won't hurt your gun to be less conspicuous.

mwar410
January 13, 2011, 06:36 PM
Man I love the camo finish on my 391, it's not pretty, but it is the ultimate finish for a duck gun. I hunt seaducks and my 870 would just rust at the thought of going hunting. The only vurnerable spot for rust on the gun is the swivel and the rivot on the gas vent.

HKGuns
January 13, 2011, 07:57 PM
Basically what Bigjim said. Depends on the game.

DRT300
January 13, 2011, 08:14 PM
Much easier to clean.

bamaranger
January 14, 2011, 12:46 AM
If you hunt critters where camo clothing is to your advantage, then a camo gun is more of same.

I've taped my old 870Mag for turkeys for so many years, its just part of the routine, but I coulda saved alot of money by purchasing a camo gun, or refinishing to something dull. Weren't any camo guns in those days.

hogdogs
January 14, 2011, 01:14 AM
I am not convinced it is less visible to a critter. They generally are far glossier than the real foliage. If they were full matte finish then maybe.

But being a plastic coating, I guess it would be easier to clean and somewhat more abrasion resistant so this may be a nice feature.

Brent

Scorch
January 14, 2011, 03:26 AM
Is a Camo shotgun really worth the extra money?
Absolutely! All the animals have seen blued steel and wood by now, and they know what it means, but the camo confuses their natural skepticism and causes them to abandon their natural fear of the unknown. I am sure it has been written somewhere that they will approach without a care in the world, knowing full well that that "leafy thing" can't (and wouldn't) hurt them. :rolleyes: They approach the new object, sure of their safety and secure in the knowledge that "leafy things" cannot be used hurt them under the Geneva Convention or something like that. And most deer have never read of a single instance of animal death attributed to a camo shotgun. So go ahead, buy a camoed gun, it will help the economy! And who knows, maybe you can get them to repeal the law of nature that says that movement is your enemy, not the color of your gun.

I can't believe I actually wrote that and clicked the "Submit Reply" button . . .

Deerhunter
January 14, 2011, 08:23 AM
I would say yes it does. More important though is the kind of camo on the gun. You don't want anything that is going to produce a glare in the sun. This is especially true for ducks and geese. The Browning MaXus has a great finish that is durable and no glare. For upland birds your fine, but anything else if the sun hits it and it creates a shine it will key the game in on your location

tynimiller
January 14, 2011, 10:01 AM
You give a good hunter a blaze orange, or yellow, or any color and they'll still be successful. Movement and not knowing when to get into position makes the biggest difference. Camo guns are just a way for manufacturors to make more money!

Rifleman1776
January 14, 2011, 10:04 AM
The expensive camo options catch a lot of hunters.
That is it's main purpose.

zippy13
January 14, 2011, 11:23 AM
Re: Scorch's post #12 -- ROFLMAO, Bravo Zulu

Doyle
January 14, 2011, 11:40 AM
You give a good hunter a blaze orange, or yellow, or any color and they'll still be successful.

Not if you are shooting doves, waterfowl, or turkeys.

tynimiller
January 14, 2011, 12:33 PM
I'd take that bet! :D

michael t
January 14, 2011, 11:53 PM
How did we hunt for last 100+ years with out all this camo stuff . been lots of turkey ,dove , ducks and so on killed with blue guns and no camo clothing .

I still know several old men in the 70's and early 80's in my area that hunt dove in folding chairs and normal clothing and old Winchester or Remington shot guns. Most get their limit also. .

Uncle Buck
January 15, 2011, 04:22 AM
Do they still make the camo stocking for the gun? My brother in law uses one and it works great, just slips loosly over the gun.

I hate the tape. I have seen what it does to a finish when removed, or when it gets wet and the rust starts commong through the tape.

Dr. Strangelove
January 15, 2011, 04:44 AM
Absolutely! All the animals have seen blued steel and wood by now, and they know what it means, but the camo confuses their natural skepticism and causes them to abandon their natural fear of the unknown. I am sure it has been written somewhere that they will approach without a care in the world, knowing full well that that "leafy thing" can't (and wouldn't) hurt them. They approach the new object, sure of their safety and secure in the knowledge that "leafy things" cannot be used hurt them under the Geneva Convention or something like that. And most deer have never read of a single instance of animal death attributed to a camo shotgun. So go ahead, buy a camoed gun, it will help the economy! And who knows, maybe you can get them to repeal the law of nature that says that movement is your enemy, not the color of your gun.

Yeah, sounds like when I went to the local gun store (LGS) looking for a turkey choke for my Mossberg 500a with 26" barrel.

Gun guy: What you have is a home defense gun. You need this (camo auto-loading just obscene $1400 gun)

Me: Really? So my 12ga won't kill a turkey as dead? Can that thing kill a turkey in all known dimensions of the space-time continuum?

Gun guy: UHHHH

Me: Yeah, just give me the choke.

Real answer - wrap it if you want, or buy a camo gun, but you're busted way before the turkey sees your gun. Practice your hunting technique...

natman
January 15, 2011, 10:41 AM
A camo gun is not required to hunt anything. It helps you remain visually undetected. This is more important hunting some things than others.

I am amazed by some of the strange arguments that have been dredged up.

It won't help if you move. Gee, no kidding. It won't help if you set off fireworks, light fires or play heavy metal cranked up to 11 either.

They didn't have it 100 years ago. Things were different 100 years ago. Hunting pressure was much less. If one deer saw you, another would be along soon.

This particular argument has to be unique to hunters / gunners. Can you imagine some car guy arguing that you don't need electric start / disc brakes / air conditioning because they didn't have it 100 years ago and they still got around? Or a hi-fi fan saying that you don't need amplification and stereo speakers because the old hand cranked Victrola worked OK?

silvrjeepr
January 23, 2011, 01:36 AM
The camo guns look great and are extremely durable as far as finish goes. That's about as far as it goes. Heck, I've been in a debate with a few buddies about a couple of camo patterns out that make you stand out like a neon sign at dusk due to the extremely light patches in them. I may do the red plaid and jeans thing next year just to prove things to myself.

sirsloop
January 23, 2011, 08:46 AM
If you are going to be hunting foul them I'd say a camo shotgun is preferable. Camo EVERYTHING is preferable :D

hogdogs
January 23, 2011, 09:07 AM
If you are going to be hunting foul
I will cry fowl on that one!:D

And I would have to point out that the depletion of duck, turkey and pheasant populations occurred before very many folks were trying any concealment products.

If wanted to hide, you assembled a blind consisting of flora from the area... "match the hatch" if you will... I bet it takes less time to build a ground blind for free than it takes to dial the phone and order clothing, guns or blind "material" from some where that has no idea what your immediate hunting area looks like.

I use camo... I reach into the muck and smear some on my exposed skin. And since my old flannel shirts carry 20 years of stains, they have their own "break up" pattern going...:D

Brent

bswiv
January 23, 2011, 10:10 AM
Interesting thread........

IMHO it comes down to glare and not camo as such. I would bet that in a controlled experement a matt finish, ( brown, green, tan.....some woodland color ) would prove as effective as actual camo.

That said, my old Mossberg ( flat black finish ) has some really ugly spray paint on it.......and I think in every instance when I've been busted by a animal it's been something other than he shotgun that caught their attention.

anthonygordon
January 23, 2011, 03:06 PM
it all depends on what your hunting really, i dont think that it makes any difference when hunting but some people think that the more the animal cant see then the bettter

blutob
January 23, 2011, 06:10 PM
In upstate NY we are required to wear bright orange during gun season. I don't think a camo shotgun is going to matter much if you're wearing bright orange. The deer don't see you anyway unless you move while they are looking at you. A gun with a wood stock blends in very well with the trees (they are made out of wood also). I have one shotgun which I have installed a camo stock and forend because the original stock is nice walnut and I don't want my son to ruin it in the woods. The synthetic camo stock is very durable and after 9 years still looks new. But as far as spooking deer is concerned, it makes no difference.

For turkey or waterfowl, I doubt that a camo shotgun would provide an advantage. In order for the gun to move, the person holding it must move also and I think any animal will see movement from a 6 foot bulky human before seeing movement from a 4 foot, very thin firearm. Most wild animals have a natural fear of humans, not inanimate objects.

DG45
January 27, 2011, 03:36 PM
Sorry, I don't buy the need for camo guns for waterfowl. In the late 1800's my granddad used to be a "market gunner" in the winter, killing geese to ship north to railroads and fine restaurants. He probably killed more geese every year than most of the members of this forum will ever see. He didn't use camo anything. Today, I live on a river about 30 miles as the crow flies from where he used to hunt, in what used to be considered the greatest goose-hunting area in the world. The huge sky-darkening flocks of geese that were common in my grandads day are no more, but we still occasionally get migrating Canada geese and Mallards in our backyard. People still hunt them about a half mile upriver from where I live, in an area where theres no development. You can hear shotguns blasting away up there at ducks and geese early every morning this time of the year.

When we first built this house about ten years ago, anywhere from 2 to ten geese at a time would occasionally land (or swim up) to graze on our lawn, but then my wife started feeding them cracked corn and we'd get over 50 adult geese in our backyard sometimes, and at least that many ducks. They made a disgusting mess of our yard, so we had to quit feeding them. Now we're back to occasionally getting from two to ten at a time again.

If you don't make any sudden movements, you can walk up to within about 30-40 feet of a flock of these geese. Once, I got too close to some (within about 25 feet of them) and one of them looked like he was going to attack me while all his buddies made an unhurried retreat back to the waters edge. Then some of them swam, and others flew out about 30 feet or so from shore and watched until I went back in, then they all returned to my yard to graze (and defecate).

Camo shotgun needed to hunt them indeed! Harrumpph!

Incidentally, the local golf courses in this area hate Canada geese. They'd probably PAY you to bring your camo shotgun and walk up to within about 30 feet of a flock of geese grazing (and defecating) on their fairway, and start blasting.

markj
January 27, 2011, 04:30 PM
I put mine down and cant seem to find it :) now

twobit
January 27, 2011, 05:47 PM
camo is good for the economy. Each year guys with metal detectors flock to the public hunting lands after the seasons close. How else would all that slightly used camo gear end up at garage sales and on ebay

silvercorvette
January 27, 2011, 10:19 PM
Don't ever get any camo stuff, I have some camo gear in the house that I can't find because the camo works so well.

================================

Serious reply, I have no use for it and I doubt I ever will, but if anyone has the need or desire for it I support their right to own camo gear and guns.

natman
January 28, 2011, 04:42 AM
Sorry, I don't buy the need for camo guns for waterfowl. In the late 1800's my granddad used to be a "market gunner" in the winter, killing geese to ship north to railroads and fine restaurants. He probably killed more geese every year than most of the members of this forum will ever see. He didn't use camo anything. Today, I live on a river about 30 miles as the crow flies from where he used to hunt, in what used to be considered the greatest goose-hunting area in the world. The huge sky-darkening flocks of geese that were common in my grandads day are no more, but we still occasionally get migrating Canada geese and Mallards in our backyard. People still hunt them about a half mile upriver from where I live, in an area where theres no development.

First, I agree that a camo shotgun is not required to hunt waterfowl. However, it helps. As you point out, the flocks are smaller now and the habitat smaller. This means that the concentration of hunters is much denser than before. By the end of the season the birds have been shot at enough that they take a long, close look before they land. Anything that makes you less visible helps.

I am always amazed by the argument "They didn't have it 100 years ago, so it must not be any good." Do you still drive a Model T?

markj
January 28, 2011, 04:42 PM
No camo and we still shoot ducks and geese here :) but what the heck, if you really have to justify an expense :) I will back ya with the wife :)

I did buy a cabelas waterproof camo gun case that floats :) for my upland guns :)

HKGuns
January 28, 2011, 10:35 PM
In the late 1800's my granddad used to be a "market gunner" in the winter, killing geese to ship north to railroads and fine restaurants. He probably killed more geese every year than most of the members of this forum will ever see. He didn't use camo anything. The huge sky-darkening flocks of geese that were common in my grandads day are no more

Your post serves to re-inforce why camo IS effective today. "The sky darkening flocks are gone." They sure are and when you may only see one flock in a day of hunting you should take advantage of anything that will give you an edge. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.

There was no such thing as camo anything in the late 1800's. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have used it if it were available.

Punt guns were very common in that time, especially for market hunters. Not sure I'd need camo either if I were sportin' a punt gun.

Your argument against using camo for duck or goose hunting TODAY isn't very compelling to me.

Dave McC
January 29, 2011, 09:35 AM
I started waterfowling well before the camo craze. We killed lots of stuff, maybe too much. However, I do not drive the 49 Willys anymore either.

Much of my hunting stuff is more Early Lumberjack than designer pattern camo. I do add some camo stick on tape to Frankenstein before a hunt, but that's a tweak, not a quantum leap in invisibility.

Camo,IMO, is less crucial than movement discipline and glare. Shiny=bad.

natman
January 29, 2011, 10:13 AM
Much of my hunting stuff is more Early Lumberjack than designer pattern camo.

Hunters wore those large plaids in an effort to "break up your outline", in other words, camo. We just have better patterns available today.

Dave McC
January 30, 2011, 09:16 AM
True, Natman. Even earlier, my Celtic ancestors devised tartans for the same purpose. Every clan had a fancy pattern and an everyday one. The non fancy one blended into the heather and gorse.....

ARick81
January 30, 2011, 09:29 AM
Just don't set it down in the grass.

RLFD5415
January 30, 2011, 04:17 PM
In upstate NY we are required to wear bright orange during gun season.

Not sure where you are hunting, but there is no NY state law that requires you to wear orange.


Scroll half way down the page:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9186.html

Back on topic, given today's hunting pressure, why not use camo on your gun? I'll admit that I have been busted by game due to untimely movement. But, I did not blow the hunt, since I froze and game could not figure out what I was. So, what I am saying is some good camo can make up for some minor sins.

blutob
January 30, 2011, 05:12 PM
RLFD5414, Sorry for the error. There is in fact no law requiring deer hunters to wear hunter orange in NY state. However, it is strongly advisable. This past season I kicked out 3 nice bucks together on my property and was almost going to shoot but then decided against it since they were on the run at about 70 yds away. I heard 3 shots up ahead and walked over to find a neighbor hunter on the property line directly ahead of me dressed in full camo! Had I shot I would have been shooting directly in his direction. He had seen me but I could not see him. (By the way, he missed the bucks, and I later took one of them, a nice 9 point).

But back to the topic, if I buy a shotgun with a synthetic stock (for durability), I would definitley prefer camo over black if only for aesthetic appeal. I still can't see though, a significant advantage as far as hiding the gun from the game, for the reasons stated in my previous thread. A stock made of wood is already camoflauged since it is the same material as the trees. A few years back, I set my (wood stocked) gun against a tree to go over and help my son gut a deer. It later took me about half an hour to find it! I could not believe how well it blended in.

RLFD5415
January 30, 2011, 06:12 PM
No apology necessary, Blutob. That's why I asked where you were. I wouldn't put it past some of the Southern Tier or Western counties to pass their own ordinance requiring orange. While I am all for it, I don't want to be told I have to wear it.

You bring up a good point regarding materials. If your barrel is blued and your stock is wood, then converting to camo is probably a wasted effort. Most of my new purchases involve synthetic and stainless - on my rifles at least. At this point, camo is worth the extra expense/effort, at least for me.

There really is no right answer. This is a very personal thing. Kinda like Chevy vs. Ford...

markj
February 2, 2011, 05:02 PM
During the depression, Grandpa used fishing line a treble hook, some corn and a 2x4 to catch geesde and ducks. Add them up you get a fowl on a hook tied to the 2x4 so he cant fly away. :) a small club later and you got dinner...



No camo then.

I ask my kid (8) to not wear camo in case he gets hurt afield or on his way home as we live in the country. I have him wearing reds and bright colors just in case. I dont like the camo craze fad. But some do and we live here in a free well somewhat free country and anyone can wear whatever they wish.