Since it's been about a week since anything new was posted here I thought I'd stir the pot and see what folks here think...
#1. If a 3 1/2 inch shell has 1 3/8 oz of shot and a 3 inch shell has 1 1/4 oz of shot (which in a #3 steel shot size would mean the shell has 19 or 20 more shot contained within), why would that be a bad thing to have the potential for one or two more individual pieces of shot the hit the bird thereby making it more likely to kill it in the air rather than having to shot it again on the water if it is not killed outright (assuming, of course it is shot at the same distance)?
#2. How does 3 1/2 inch shells "encourage" skybusting. Is it the same way an AR-15 "encourages" mass shootings, as the media and lefties claim? Are we blaming the tool instead of the operator for this transgression? Do 3 1/2s "encourage" shooting before legal time also?
#3. Is there something I'm doing wrong, (or maybe right), that I don't really feel any difference in the recoil between 3 1/2s and 3s. Do other people feel a significant difference that makes it uncomfortable for them? Could this be related to the size of the person shooting the shotgun?
#4. If 3 1/2s are "not necessary", why aren't 3s "not necessary"? After all, 2 3/4 inch shells are still available, in fact, back in the lead shot days that's all I shot for ducks since the old 870 had a 2 3/4 inch chamber. Maybe when steel first came out it was necessary but shells have supposedly improved so should people that were using 3 inch shells go back to 2 3/4 inch shells?
Just thought I see if this wakes things up in this forum. Curious what y'all think.