Are 3.5" shotguns a fad?

[Super-Dave]

Are 12 gauge 3.5" shotguns a dying fad, or will more and more models be made in 3.5"?

Will 3.5" eventually be the standard on all shotguns in the future?

[jmr40]

Not a fad, but more of a niche market. They can be useful if you goose hunt a lot. For ducks and any other shotgun use they are more than needed and you can do pretty well on geese without them.

Many pumpguns are being chambered for them because it does not cost any more to chamber for any of the lengths and most pumps will cycle any power level ammo.

[noyes]

After you shoot a few ... you will most likely not like the recoil nor the price of the shells. i.m.o. fad.

[grubbylabs]

I can bang the 3 1/2" all day and they don't kick any more than the 3" I use them when the river ducks or golden eyes don't want to come in to close and they circle farther out over the river. I also use them when on the river and geese come in. I know in our little corner of the world they are a popular round and I don't see them leaving any time soon. Sportsman's and Walmart sell out of them by the 6-8 week mark of the season.

[hogdogs]

Yeah for turkey of water fowl... but I sure hope I am never limited to a 3.5 gun. Action requires one inch more action travel to cycle a round.
Brent

[grubbylabs]

I can spit 3 31/2" shells out of that gun way faster than I need to.

[hogdogs]

grubby, this may well be true but you could cycle a 3 inch gun even faster

Since I will never need to fire 3 inch or 3.5 inch ammo, I am satisfied with a 2 3/4-3 inch gun.
Brent

[grubbylabs]

I don't think I could afford to shoot faster, If I could get buy with 2 3/4 shells I would they cost less. But we get so many fliers down the middle of the river that it pays to have the extra reach of the bigger shells.

I hunted geese with a guy this year in a field where he did very well with a 20ga, but I rarely hunt fields.

[noyes]

We could go 400 shells in 2 1/2 hours . I'll use Federal Game Shok 2 3/4 shells & Mossberg 590.
I will supply the clays & thrower. I'd like to see someone go thru 400 3 1/2" shells. It won't take all day .


.

[igor]

I shoot IPSC shotgun with max 67,5mm long shells. The magnum chambering is a waste for me. YMMV.

[grubbylabs]

Well noyes if I were near you and could afford that many shells or had a press to reload lead ones I would certainly take you up on your offer. But I only have about 6 BB shells left.

[mwar410]

I'd have a heart attack if i only had 6 shells left.
I can't believe I'm responding to another OP posts

[noyes]

grubbylabs ..dang , we would have had a LOT of FUN.

[ZeSpectre]

I can't say if it's a fad overall, but I'm a recoil wimp so 3.5" shells are definitely a passing fad for ME.

[grubbylabs]

I have well over a box of 3" shells.

I shoot a Nova pump with the recoil reducer in so it takes a lot out of that 3 1/2" shell. I can bang away with 3 or 3 1/2 it does not matter other than price. I try to save them for long birds or geese. I wish I could find them in #2 shot though.

[5whiskey]

I have a mossy 835 ulti mag. I've bought 1 box of 3.5" shells. Too flippin' expensive man. I will stick to 2 3/4" or maybe 3" if I feel like splurging. Personally, I haven't seen any hard evidence that shows a magnum bagging a bird that a non-magnum wouldn't have bagged.

[earlthegoat2]

Used to be useful in the days of no alternative to steel shot.

Now there is Hevi Shot in 3" shells.

[reloader28]

I used 3 1/2's one year for goose hunting and never will again. They are a waste of money in my opinion. I've killed more geese with 3". I always like to argue with the guys that dont reload and they think the 3 1/2 hits so much harder.

In reality the 3" is normally faster than 3 1/2" and in steel shot that is where it counts. The 3 1/2" gives you a little more shot (and a little more powder for more kick) but usually at a little slower speed.

In shotguns, magnum refers only to more shot payload, not more speed as in a magnum rifle.

I am only talking about goose steel shot. I dont know what else a person would need 3 1/2" loads for besides that.

[hoytinak]

I don't hunt anything bigger than pheasant with my shotgun and other than that it's a little trap every now and again so I don't even need a 3" shell much less a 3 1/2". I think I'll just stick to my 2 3/4" and save my shoulder.

[BigJimP]

I think it was a way for gun mfg's to sell a few more guns ...

Is it a fad ...maybe....but it probably won't go away either. In my opinion, a 3" chamber will do whatever I need to do - even on waterfowl / so I have no need for a gun chambered in 3 1/2".

[scotyg]

i dont have a shotgun in 3.5 but i probably will when i get a new gun. I buy my waterfowl loads by the case and a case of 3.5" is only about $25 more then a case of 3" so thats not that bad. i would be willing to pay that.

[Hardcase]

3 1/2"? I'm still shooting 2 5/8"!

[Maser]

I never was a fan of the 3.5" shell. IMO, it's nothing more than a 10 gauge load stuffed inside a 12 gauge shell. Sure, it has its purposes on the field, but it sure isn't something I'd want to be shooting all day long.

[rbernie]

I find that the 3 1/2" chamber and loads imposed by the magnum shells require an upsizing of the receiver and gun as a whole to the point where the 3 1/2" gun isn't so useful anymore for any kind of walkin' about..... I suppose in a waterfowl blind or when sitting waiting on toms, weight doesn't matter so much and the extra payload/reach has its place.

I wouldn't call them faddish - just a solution for a small segment of the market that really needs an extra bit of reach (and likely more room for payload when using non-lead shot).

[NightSleeper]

I don't think it's a fad. I like having the 3.5" chamber so you have a choice of ammo. I only use 3.5" shells for hunting turkey though, everything else (including HD) I use 2.75".