16ga.com ~ View topic

Joined: 12 Aug 2005 Posts: 12 Location: Central Illinois

For me, the WHOLE point of a 16 ga is that it is lighter than a 12.
When I hunt late season Phez, or ducks, I shoot a gun that is comfortable for the 1 1/4 oz loads that hold an appropriate amount of #4s that I believe give me the best lethality for the conditions. I have no problem with a 12 that weighs 7 1/2 #s.
My point is why carry a 12 weight gun , when I am shooting 1oz shells? If a 6 # gun comfortably handles 1oz payloads, why tote the unnecessary extra weight? Why buy a smaller gauge gun that weighs the same as a 12? Why put a 4 cylinder in a suburban?
Why are A H Fox small bores so revered- they are light, well balanced FIELD guns .
I would think that if a modern gunmaker decided to make a 16 , which are to be used for upland ( i. e. " carry guns") hunting NOT target guns, that the First criteria should be weight. Was it Gough Thomas who penned the 96 rule? 1 oz. x 96/ 16 = a 6 # gun. I still like 30" tubes , so another 4 oz would be acceptable.
If the Spanish, Germans( at least pre-war) and English could make 6 # 16 bore doubles, then why can't Browning/FN figure it out? There are no 3" or magnum 16s, so just make a nice light , balanced 16 , 2 3/4" field gun with nice walnut IF you decide to manufacture a 16.
Best regards,
JBP

Joined: 16 Feb 2007 Posts: 181 Location: Great White North

Some good points mentioned.

J.B Patton, first welcome to the forum, glad to have you here. Second, you make too much sense, surely you will be opposed by the folks that shoot 10,000 rounds a year.

There will be screaming how you can't build a light shotgun anymore, because everyone wants screw in chokes, lawyers, etc.

Modern steels, costs too much to make a dedicated frame, it goes on forever, but of course, that is all BS.

The ONLY thing preventing a lightweight 16 ga O/U is demand.

Face it folks, we are a dying breed, who love our light weight 16's, sadly, the majority of a dying breed of shot gunners don't.

I very much enjoyed your post, don't be a stranger.

Dale

Joined: 16 Feb 2007 Posts: 181 Location: Great White North

Well I don't shoot 10,000 rounds a year, not even close. But I am very glad that a manufacturer such as Browning chooses to at least routinely build batches of good quality 16g guns for some of us to enjoy. And the fact that they're a few ounces more than they 'should' be wouldn't stop me from buying one.

Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Posts: 2125 Location: Hudson,Wy

I don't shoot 10,000 rounds a year either but 500-1000 out of a sixteen while actually hunting upland birds is an accurate measurement. Thus, I do carry my gun a great many hours.

Since I carry it so much I do notice an extra pound and agree with J.B. on the weight thing. I also carry 12ga. guns when needed. On long hikes I feel it. Many of my 12's weigh about the same or less than the Citori 16's so I am disappointed about Browning not making them lighter.

It really doesn't cost all that much more (if at all) to make the guns a little lighter and the Citori's are not exactly cheap. It is probably more of a liability issue or it could be tradition since Brownings typically have always had a certain feel to them.

I do however applaud Browning for continuing its offering of 16 ga. over/under shotguns. If someday they make one that handles and carries a little more like my Fox, I will likely own one.

Member Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Posts: 989 Location: Las Vegas

I've had 3 lower lumbar fusions and carry 9 2" screws in my lower back so gun weight is an issue for me. For the field I usually carry one of my 2 English doubles. Both just a tad on either side of 6 lbs. Or my Citori Feather at a hair under 6lb. All 16's of course.

Matt

Joined: 16 Jul 2015 Posts: 2125 Location: Hudson,Wy

How long did they make the feather? That one kind of piques my interest.