3" vs 3.5" in HD

Coronach · March 11, 2000, 09:29 AM

Would anyone care to give an opinion on the utility of a 3.5" chambered shotgun for HD? I'm aware that most of the HD/tactical guns are chambered in 3" magnum, but I was wondering how useful the 3.5" shotshells were that role.

I'm aware that 3.5" shotguns can fire 2.75" to 3.5" shotshells, so in that regard they are more flexible (a plus), but if the 'ideal' tactical shotshell is the 3" magnum, then ability to fire 3.5" is nice, but hardly
necessary.

So, opinions on the whole stopping power v. recoil v. penetration v. overpenetration etc etc etc issue would be highly appreciated.

Thanks,

Mike

Oleg Volk · March 11, 2000, 01:19 PM

And a related question: would I gain much from using a 3" in place of 2 3/4" with #3 buck (20gauge)? I know that would reduce the tube capacity from seven to six but don't really expect to fire off more than a couple in a any case. How much more noise and recoil would I get for a 3" and is the extra payload worth it?

I will, of course, try it the next range trip but I am curious now. I am also amused by 12ga people trying to cut down their payload ("tactical" buck) while 20gs users are trying to bridge the gap, not too successfully.

Tony III · March 11, 2000, 07:00 PM

I'd think that a hot loaded 2" 12 ga shell would have enough power for HD. Maybe as good as a 3" 20ga ? With 50% higher capacity in the tube, & you could still use 2.75"/3"/3.5" for hunting an/or masochism

Dave McC · March 12, 2000, 07:14 PM

Who says the 3" is the ideal HD round? Not me...

At Aberdeen Proving Grounds some years back, there was a program to develop a small, portable but lethal close range weapon for drivers, MPs, tunnel rats, etc. One approach was a Select fire 24 or 28 ga shotgun with a payload of about 5/8 oz. I saw a semi auto version that had some neat features in a bull pup arrangement,and made some very impressive channels in ballistic clay. Pellets were copper jacketed #3 or 4,as I recall.Bbl was choked and sights similiar to most battle rifles were in place.

If the military,with its expertise in what it takes to kill folks, thought the idea had merit, obviously they thought the tiny payload would do the job.

Al Thompson · March 12, 2000, 07:49 PM

Ipersonally think the 3 inch round for HD is an invalid option. Two reasons - one, as David McC once said, a shotgun loaded with breath mints is probably adequate for HD and 2, I think the 3 inchers and above are spurious. The standard 2 & 3/4 loads work very well.You gain more noise, recoil and fewer options with the longer rounds. Another point, which may not apply in your situation, is that you limit the guns that can handle the rounds. I like knowing that any of my scatterguns can handle any of my "social" loads.

YMMV!

Giz

Big Bunny · March 12, 2000, 09:25 PM

A 2" English #6(BRIT size) 12GA with 1OZ loads can "do the buisiness" I assure you, at least up to 25 M !!

Coronach · March 12, 2000, 11:26 PM

Yeah, this is what I'm getting at. My statement that '3" shells are the ideal tactical load' was more of a question than an assertion- I have no idea if they are or not. What I'm getting from the replies here is that the shorter shotshells have adequate power and that by going for the longer ones you're getting more recoil (bad) and the added payload is superfluous.

Anyone else? I'm waiting for the more-is-better crowd to weigh in.

Thanks,
Mike

------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein

Ned Roundtree · March 13, 2000, 11:40 PM

Generally in a HD situation over penetration is an issue. What's the sense in defeating a bad guy if collateral damage is the family? Hence, the 3" or 3.5" is more than you need. In close combat lower velocity means less deformation of pellets and better penetration anyway. Finally, in my HD, the wife is also trained on HD shotgun. Lower recoil of smaller shells is what she feels comfortable handling. So for me, the 3" and 3.5" is overkill (pardon the pun).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

March 11, 2000, 09:29 AM	#1
Coronach Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 1999 Posts: 3,147	Would anyone care to give an opinion on the utility of a 3.5" chambered shotgun for HD? I'm aware that most of the HD/tactical guns are chambered in 3" magnum, but I was wondering how useful the 3.5" shotshells were that role. I'm aware that 3.5" shotguns can fire 2.75" to 3.5" shotshells, so in that regard they are more flexible (a plus), but if the 'ideal' tactical shotshell is the 3" magnum, then ability to fire 3.5" is nice, but hardly necessary. So, opinions on the whole stopping power v. recoil v. penetration v. overpenetration etc etc etc issue would be highly appreciated. Thanks, Mike

March 11, 2000, 01:19 PM	#2
Oleg Volk Staff Alumnus Join Date: December 6, 1999 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 7,022	And a related question: would I gain much from using a 3" in place of 2 3/4" with #3 buck (20gauge)? I know that would reduce the tube capacity from seven to six but don't really expect to fire off more than a couple in a any case. How much more noise and recoil would I get for a 3" and is the extra payload worth it? I will, of course, try it the next range trip but I am curious now. I am also amused by 12ga people trying to cut down their payload ("tactical" buck) while 20gs users are trying to bridge the gap, not too successfully.

March 11, 2000, 07:00 PM	#3
Tony III Member Join Date: March 2, 1999 Posts: 88	I'd think that a hot loaded 2" 12 ga shell would have enough power for HD. Maybe as good as a 3" 20ga ? With 50% higher capacity in the tube, & you could still use 2.75"/3"/3.5" for hunting an/or masochism

March 12, 2000, 07:14 PM	#4
Dave McC Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 13, 1999 Location: Columbia, Md, USA Posts: 8,811	Who says the 3" is the ideal HD round? Not me... At Aberdeen Proving Grounds some years back, there was a program to develop a small, portable but lethal close range weapon for drivers, MPs, tunnel rats, etc. One approach was a Select fire 24 or 28 ga shotgun with a payload of about 5/8 oz. I saw a semi auto version that had some neat features in a bull pup arrangement,and made some very impressive channels in ballistic clay. Pellets were copper jacketed #3 or 4,as I recall.Bbl was choked and sights similiar to most battle rifles were in place. If the military,with its expertise in what it takes to kill folks, thought the idea had merit, obviously they thought the tiny payload would do the job.

March 12, 2000, 07:49 PM	#5
Al Thompson Staff Alumnus Join Date: May 2, 1999 Location: South Carolina Posts: 3,611	Ipersonally think the 3 inch round for HD is an invalid option. Two reasons - one, as David McC once said, a shotgun loaded with breath mints is probably adequate for HD and 2, I think the 3 inchers and above are spurious. The standard 2 & 3/4 loads work very well.You gain more noise, recoil and fewer options with the longer rounds. Another point, which may not apply in your situation, is that you limit the guns that can handle the rounds. I like knowing that any of my scatterguns can handle any of my "social" loads. YMMV! Giz

March 12, 2000, 09:25 PM	#6
Big Bunny Senior Member Join Date: August 9, 1999 Location: New South Wales - Australia Posts: 605	A 2" English #6(BRIT size) 12GA with 1OZ loads can "do the buisiness" I assure you, at least up to 25 M !!

March 12, 2000, 11:26 PM	#7
Coronach Senior Member Join Date: March 25, 1999 Posts: 3,147	Yeah, this is what I'm getting at. My statement that '3" shells are the ideal tactical load' was more of a question than an assertion- I have no idea if they are or not. What I'm getting from the replies here is that the shorter shotshells have adequate power and that by going for the longer ones you're getting more recoil (bad) and the added payload is superfluous. Anyone else? I'm waiting for the more-is-better crowd to weigh in. Thanks, Mike ------------------ "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein

March 13, 2000, 11:40 PM	#8
Ned Roundtree Senior Member Join Date: December 8, 1999 Location: Lexington, KY,USA Posts: 738	Generally in a HD situation over penetration is an issue. What's the sense in defeating a bad guy if collateral damage is the family? Hence, the 3" or 3.5" is more than you need. In close combat lower velocity means less deformation of pellets and better penetration anyway. Finally, in my HD, the wife is also trained on HD shotgun. Lower recoil of smaller shells is what she feels comfortable handling. So for me, the 3" and 3.5" is overkill (pardon the pun).