Browning Waterfowl

[njc110381]

I've been looking at this gun in a magazine, and am interested to hear about the 3.5" chambers. If I'm granted a certificate, I think it is the gun I will be looking for. I understand the maximum cartridge length is determined by the chamber length, but how does such a long chambered gun pattern with a smaller load like a 2.5"? I want a gun that can handle a heavy load for geese, but will probably be shooting pigeons, clays and rabbits 99% of the time. Would this gun be suitable for me? I'm not keen on auto or pump guns, and would prefer an O/U multi choke. I've also looked at a Zabala of the same spec, and the 3" magnum Baikal range

[Baldrick]

Fire a few 3" or 3 1/2" magnum cartridges through a n O/U like that, and then compare it to a gas-operated semi-auto. Whilst I admit the Waterfowl would probably be more versatile, for its intended use there are far better (and more user-friendly) alternatives.

 

I say that because I shoot a Browning B25, and the recoil in a 7 1/2lb O/U is pretty noticeable with punchy cartridges. I don't have the Browning brchure in front of me, but I'd imagine the Waterfowl probably weighs in at 8lb+. Not a lot of mass to soak up the recoil from magnum cartridges.

[njc110381]

Thanks for pointing that out, I'd never thought of the recoil side of things. I think I would still prefer an O/U though, as I will be firing it a lot more at clays and vermin. I've heard that semi autos are not always liked at clay shoots? That was the main reason for looking at the O/U style. I also like the idea of having a choice of choke, so I could select which barrel to fire depending on what turns up at the time. That said, I am unsure how much choke actually matters! I assume it just gives tighter patterns at long range?

[Baldrick]

You'll find umpteen threads on here about the merits of OUs vs semi-autos, and also about chokes.

 

Purely as my own opinion, I would opt for something like a Miroku/Browning OU. The 3 1/2" chambers on the Browning Waterfowl are pretty excessive, and are aimed at the American market, where 3 1/2" ammo is very common (for both wildfowling and turkey hunting).

 

Find a good second-hand OU with 3" chambers and you will be able to use it without any bother on clays/wildfowl and when rough/game shooting.

 

Most clubs allow semi-autos, but I far prefer the double redundancy/"two of everything" advantage of an OU, particularly when you're stuck out in the field, miles from any spare parts.

 

If your wallet allows, buy two guns?

[njc110381]

I'll bear that in mind. Most of the Miroku kit seems to be out of my price range, unless I haven't been looking hard enough. Browning seems to be a good make. I only looked at the Waterfowl because of the long chambers and good price. I'm very new to shotguns and figured that if you can get a gun that will fire a wider range of cartridges, it has to be a good all rounder as long as it fits me! If I never use 3.5" shells in it then at least I could if I ever needed to? I'd rather spend my money on one good gun than have two cheaper ones, as long as I can get away with it. I have £1000 max, but would prefer under £750. I spotted a used Waterfowl for £800, seems cheap for what it is? Are there any bad points to a long chamber if I'm not going to need it? Poor patterns with small loads etc? Sorry if my ideas seem daft or pointless, I'm fairly clueless outside the Airguns area!

[Baldrick]

There are likely to be people on here with good knowledge of the ballistic/patterning effects of firing 2 3/4" or 3" cartridges from a 3 1/2" chamber. I couldn't answer that, I'm afraid. I find that 2 3/4" or 3" ammo in a 3" chamber is a lethally successful, and trouble-free combination.

 

£750-1000 would buy you a Miroku, a Browning or a Beretta. All very respectable weapons. Just have a good look through Guntrader.co.uk, and negotiate hard. You get what you pay for, I assure you.

 

I would personally steer clear of the Waterfowl. The resale value might not be as good as a normal Beretta/Browning/Miroku, should you wish to get rid of it.

[njc110381]

Ok, I'll spend some more time looking around. I think you may be right about resale values, but was thinking I could use that point to my advantage when buying a used example! A lot of the guns I have looked at from the makers you mention seem to have 2 3/4" chambers. Trap guns I assume? I certainly recognise those names as being good though, so I need to find a 3" version of one of them.

 

The next thing I need to look at is barrel length. I've read that with modern, fast burning powders, it is more down to balance than anything else. As I am 5'6 tall (or short!) I'm looking towards the 28-30" maximum area. Would I be right? I feel I'm going on a bit, sorry, but you are being very helpful and I appreciate it a lot!

[leeboy]

you are only going to need 3 1/2" chambers if you intend using 3 1/2" steel carts. It is nice to have the option though. Recoil wise 3 1/2" carts are going to be horrible to shoot in most guns. But on an average outing most people probably dont shoot many and sometimes only a handfull so recoil shouldn't be a problem.

 

You would have much more choice if you went with 3" chambers.

 

Leeboy

[njc110381]

Well I've looked around at a few other guns, and seen some I like. It seems that Baldricks point about resale value is spot on, but that only seems to push a used example closer to my budget. The more popular guns hold their prices much better. Once I have a gun, I like to get the feel of it and stick with it until it's tired anyway, so resale doesn't really matter much. I doubt I will fire more than ten 3.5" shells a year, but I still like the idea of being able to if it doesn't affect the overall performance. I need to get down the gun shop and check out what they have. If the Waterfowl is the same fit as the others, and not too heavy, I will probably try a used version of it. What I really need to find out (something that is bugging me a bit) is whether the longer chambers will have any negative effect to the shot pattern when used with standard 2.75 field cartridges. The answer to that, and of course the fit, will make the decision for me I think. Cheers for all your replys, they've all been very useful to me

[bigdev]

Quality gun mate, you won`t even notice the recoil of a 66gm Mirage fired at Mr Goose when its above you.

[njc110381]

I've looked down at the local gun shop today, found a really nice looking Lanber for under £500. I've heard these are fairly good quality guns if you are on a budget? There were some used Brownings (Waterfowl was heavy) and Berettas too, but for some reason I really took to this Lanber thing! It has 30" multi choke barrels, 3" chambers, and seemed to be well made. What are your thoughts on these guns?

[BERETTA687]

beretta make lanbers , there basically cheap berettas, ive heard they arent bad , i was going to get a clay version of one but never bothered.

[njc110381]

Well if they are related to beretta, they can't be that bad! I've been reading about them on the net. Not much there but general opinion seems to be that dealers like them because they don't break often, and if they do they are easy to fix. Sounds like a reasonable gun to me. It'll be a few weeks before I hear about the cert probably, so maybe a nicer Browning may appear in that time. I've gone off the waterfowl, it seems too heavy to get a fast swing at low pigeons etc. Lots to choose from though, shouldn't be too hard to find something I like!

[chrisv]

Lanber are spanish made, I think the only Beretta connection is that they are imported by GMK, who also import Beretta.

I have never heard of problems caused by firing short cartridges in long chambers, but unless you really are going to need 3 1/2" chambers I wouldn't let it force you into choosing the wrong gun!

[njc110381]

I'm starting to get the idea of shotguns slowly, and was starting to think that the Waterfowl may not be ideal for me. It's a very heavy gun. From the many posts on here, and magazine articles aswell, it sounds like it's better to have a lighter gun so it is easier to swing fast? But a heavy gun absorbs recoil of larger rounds better? I won't be firing many of these, so I think it's better to have something I can swing quickly for the clays. For the occasional goose or fox, A 3" magnum should be plenty powerful enough as long as I can deal with the sore shoulder! I once fired a .577 Snider Enfield carbine and managed ok, even with the brass butt plate. That kicked like a mule. It can't be any worse than that, can it?