On Baikal Shotguns....

Dave McC · June 11, 2001, 05:30 AM

Since there's been some interest on this BB concerning these, I'd like to relate some events at the range yesterday.

As i was setting up, another shooter was also, a man I've seen a few times but haven't spoken to much. He racked a 410 O/U with a rakish forend and I asked him about it. He replied it was a Baikal, made in Russia, and he bought it because of the price, about $400. I asked after the quality and he stated that it didn't compare to his Beretta, but he wanted a knockaround gun. He let me look it over and mount it a couple of times.I did note that wood to metal fit left a little to be disired but I've seen worse on guns like the Savage 311.

Further, he stated....

That he had to take it completely apart and hand lap most of the parts to make it break open and shut smoothly. It was still very hard to open and shut, but it did lock up.

He said the trigger still needed some work, but the balance and price made some work worth the effort. It did swing nicely, thos it felt like a BB gun after my 12 ga. I was called away then to help a new shooter.

A little while later, he and I were squadded together, and he was trying out the 410 at trap.
Long story short, when the shotgun did fire he usually hit the clay. Unfortunately, that was about half the time. A lot of time he had to break the gun open and reclose it to make it fire after several tries. He apologized to the squad for taking so long and finished up with an average maybe half of his usual.

He was undismayed,saying that the thing needed a bit of TLC, and shot nicely with his usual Beretta gas gun on the next line. The little Baikal did look nice, handled well to my judgement, so maybe this isn't typical. And, for the price, it may be worthwhile to get it as a fixer upper, for one accustomed to doing his/her own smithing.

Info submitted w/o further comment.

Gary H · June 11, 2001, 07:34 PM

I just purchased the Baikal O/U for my wife. It is still sitting in my FFL's safe, but the first thing that I did when I first saw the gun was to repeatedly break it open and then lock it up. This one seems to be fine in this regard. Also, the stock was surprisingly nice. My FFL has a side by side and likes it. I can tell you that it sits in the safe and behaves itself without any problems. No whining, or crying upon putting it away.

Harley Nolden · June 11, 2001, 07:41 PM

I bought one of these when they first came to the U.S. I shoot skeet and clays with mine and do as well as w/my rem 58. 22- 25 brids. I liked it, however at first the stock was about 1/2" too long for me. Shortned the stock and am well pleased with it appearance and functioning. Small matter, mine does not have barrel select.

HJN:

Dave McC · June 12, 2001, 10:33 AM

Thanks, folks. Some top grade shotguns are hard to open and close when new, even the Kolar has to be worked in a bit. Roughness may be the sign of indifferent manufacturing,tho.

Reliability is another matter entirely. And, designing and making a reliable shotgun is pretty much a known art these days. So, any minor functioning probs may mean bad gunmaking in the past and maybe more trouble in the future.

Also, different criteria apply for levels of use.
Imagine the difference between a shotgun used for an occasional squirrel hunt where a half dozen cartridges is a good evening's sport and one used by a hard core dove hunter who flies to Mexico and Argentina each year.

Most shotguns are shot little. So, long term use is a possibility, but not heavy use, heavy loads,
for marginal shotguns.

Me, I think I'll stick to 870s.Bet you knew I'd say that(G)....

Gary H · June 12, 2001, 11:39 AM

I get the impression that there is a strong element of snobbery within the clay shooting community. Folks with lesser resources are told that a gun such as the Baikal represent a waste of money. I haven't seen that approach on this board. Folks here seem to be rather practical. One of the main criticisms of the Baikal is that it won't hold-up to heavy use, but I paid less than $320 for this gun and if it breaks after five years of moderate use, then I will probably throw it away and buy another gun. I would think that promoting less expensive guns would expand the sport.

Dave McC · June 12, 2001, 05:20 PM

Very good point,Gary. Broken down on a per use basis, even a so-so shotgun gives a lot of shots.

So, get a shotgun at a low price, shoot it 25,000 times,throw it away. Or 10,000, however it goes.

Maybe the cost per shot is about the same if comparing a $400 shotgun good for 10,000 rounds and a $6-8000 Kolar that will go a lot longer, say 100,000. Or, a $4000 Seitz (if there is one at that price) good for the same.

June 11, 2001, 05:30 AM	#1
Dave McC Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 13, 1999 Location: Columbia, Md, USA Posts: 8,811	On Baikal Shotguns.... Since there's been some interest on this BB concerning these, I'd like to relate some events at the range yesterday. As i was setting up, another shooter was also, a man I've seen a few times but haven't spoken to much. He racked a 410 O/U with a rakish forend and I asked him about it. He replied it was a Baikal, made in Russia, and he bought it because of the price, about $400. I asked after the quality and he stated that it didn't compare to his Beretta, but he wanted a knockaround gun. He let me look it over and mount it a couple of times.I did note that wood to metal fit left a little to be disired but I've seen worse on guns like the Savage 311. Further, he stated.... That he had to take it completely apart and hand lap most of the parts to make it break open and shut smoothly. It was still very hard to open and shut, but it did lock up. He said the trigger still needed some work, but the balance and price made some work worth the effort. It did swing nicely, thos it felt like a BB gun after my 12 ga. I was called away then to help a new shooter. A little while later, he and I were squadded together, and he was trying out the 410 at trap. Long story short, when the shotgun did fire he usually hit the clay. Unfortunately, that was about half the time. A lot of time he had to break the gun open and reclose it to make it fire after several tries. He apologized to the squad for taking so long and finished up with an average maybe half of his usual. He was undismayed,saying that the thing needed a bit of TLC, and shot nicely with his usual Beretta gas gun on the next line. The little Baikal did look nice, handled well to my judgement, so maybe this isn't typical. And, for the price, it may be worthwhile to get it as a fixer upper, for one accustomed to doing his/her own smithing. Info submitted w/o further comment.

June 11, 2001, 07:34 PM	#2
Gary H Senior Member Join Date: April 26, 2000 Location: Texas Posts: 2,267	Baikal O/U I just purchased the Baikal O/U for my wife. It is still sitting in my FFL's safe, but the first thing that I did when I first saw the gun was to repeatedly break it open and then lock it up. This one seems to be fine in this regard. Also, the stock was surprisingly nice. My FFL has a side by side and likes it. I can tell you that it sits in the safe and behaves itself without any problems. No whining, or crying upon putting it away.

June 12, 2001, 11:39 AM	#5
Gary H Senior Member Join Date: April 26, 2000 Location: Texas Posts: 2,267	Clay Snobbery I get the impression that there is a strong element of snobbery within the clay shooting community. Folks with lesser resources are told that a gun such as the Baikal represent a waste of money. I haven't seen that approach on this board. Folks here seem to be rather practical. One of the main criticisms of the Baikal is that it won't hold-up to heavy use, but I paid less than $320 for this gun and if it breaks after five years of moderate use, then I will probably throw it away and buy another gun. I would think that promoting less expensive guns would expand the sport.

June 11, 2001, 07:41 PM	#3
Harley Nolden Staff In Memoriam Join Date: January 8, 1999 Location: Brunswick,GA USA Posts: 1,884	I bought one of these when they first came to the U.S. I shoot skeet and clays with mine and do as well as w/my rem 58. 22- 25 brids. I liked it, however at first the stock was about 1/2" too long for me. Shortned the stock and am well pleased with it appearance and functioning. Small matter, mine does not have barrel select. HJN:

June 12, 2001, 10:33 AM	#4
Dave McC Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 13, 1999 Location: Columbia, Md, USA Posts: 8,811	Thanks, folks. Some top grade shotguns are hard to open and close when new, even the Kolar has to be worked in a bit. Roughness may be the sign of indifferent manufacturing,tho. Reliability is another matter entirely. And, designing and making a reliable shotgun is pretty much a known art these days. So, any minor functioning probs may mean bad gunmaking in the past and maybe more trouble in the future. Also, different criteria apply for levels of use. Imagine the difference between a shotgun used for an occasional squirrel hunt where a half dozen cartridges is a good evening's sport and one used by a hard core dove hunter who flies to Mexico and Argentina each year. Most shotguns are shot little. So, long term use is a possibility, but not heavy use, heavy loads, for marginal shotguns. Me, I think I'll stick to 870s.Bet you knew I'd say that(G)....

June 12, 2001, 05:20 PM	#6
Dave McC Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 13, 1999 Location: Columbia, Md, USA Posts: 8,811	Very good point,Gary. Broken down on a per use basis, even a so-so shotgun gives a lot of shots. So, get a shotgun at a low price, shoot it 25,000 times,throw it away. Or 10,000, however it goes. Maybe the cost per shot is about the same if comparing a $400 shotgun good for 10,000 rounds and a $6-8000 Kolar that will go a lot longer, say 100,000. Or, a $4000 Seitz (if there is one at that price) good for the same.