Home Forums Birds & Dogs Shotguns 3" chamber 28 gauge

I've been considering a Browning BPS 28 gauge, if only because of all the ammo I am seeing, and it would make an awesome squirrel gun.

Just the plane old 2 3/4 on Wild Pheasants...

Love that Ithaca! I have two Upper Sandusky guns in 12 gauge. Fantastic and well made guns.

Stock handle could have been more pleasing to the eye, but most times it points where I look.

I get the 28 ga love. Have had 28’s but do not presently. Surely could get one again but unless a 28 is proportionately sized — lighter, less boxy — there is no advantage over a 20 ga. outside of pure loonyism. For example, the Browning BPS while well made, is a boat anchor. I think one is more likely to find a properly proportioned 28 in a SxS or O/U.

Now a 3” shotshell? What is its payload — 1 1/8 oz? The 2 3/4” already threw 1 oz, the standard 20 ga load. If the 3” is throwing 1 1/8 oz, that is the standard 16 ga. load. Seems to me the shot string is getting awfully long with these which outside of a stationary target like a Turkey noggin’ is not a good thing.

Anyway, my morning coffee musings.

Edit: above I’m referring to lead loads only. If non-toxics, the loads would be lighter of course.

Battue, the Ithaca 28 would have been much more pleasing with an English stock. Not that it doesn’t function perfectly as is.

Shot string concerns on moving targets, even fast birds, are academic at best. At normal velocities, the difference between the first and last pellet impact in a long versus short shot string is measured in thousandths of second. A bird flying 35-45 mph though that is going to move in fractions of an inch by the time the whole shot string connect. Far more important is the final pattern.

I suppose it could even be an advantage if you lead a 90* bird by too much..😉

Leaving long shot strings out of it, the proportionality issue is still there with many 28’s built on 20 frames. Yes, I realize I’m fairly obsessed by that fact…🙄🙂

That 28 gauge Parker Reproduction is about perfect. Although another inch or so of barrel wouldn’t hurt it.

The Ithaca 28 is close to perfect, as is a Model 12 16 gauge, if one likes pumps.

However, no matter balance wins the race over an extra ounce +/-. And if one points accurately, the center pattern of a 28 gives up nothing to the others in the upland, at the distance most of us can consistently connect. The others have more pattern fringe, but working with the fringe is not a key to consistent kills. No matter the gauge.

10Glocks kills his Turkeys with a hot core. Which always works with a good point.😉

George, I’m not all sure a straight stock would be an advantage with the Ithaca 28. It is a quick little shotgun, that needs driven as much as pointed. The pistol grip just may aid in the steering by helping with control.

My Ithacas are my only guns that shoot a true 50/50 pattern at 40 yards - neither up nor down, nor left nor right. My BPS are close. In fact, when I take my Ithacas out and shoot them, sometimes I forget they aren't my Browning or Winchester autos and hold a bit low, and end up with a pattern than is a bit low.

I've been jonesing for a new Ithaca 37 in 20 gauge but Ithaca is not making anything right now. Apparently they are going to fill their very long waitlists first when they do. Or maybe they are now. But nothing except some specialty guns are available on their website right now.

Harry, I don’t doubt that. I’m speaking purely from an aesthetic point of view which is just my opinion. The evolution of the pistol grip becoming more and more closed and then adding a thumb hole is IMO form following function.

I just like the looks of a straight stock, particularly on upland guns.

IIRC, I believe Bob Brister (in Shotgunning — the Art and the Science) showed otherwise decades ago.

One can make a good argument both ways on shot string. My argument is the hole you may see on paper is not necessarily there when you add the third dimension of time. Both for a flying target and the time it takes for the shot to fly to the target.

Agree! 👍🏼

Lots of time has gone by and lots of evidence since has shown shot string is not of paramount concern. Given the velocity of the shot, the length of the string, the time it take from first pellet to last, versus the distance a bird can move in that amount of time, shot string seems far less important that some people believe.

This guy has done some pretty interesting tests regarding shot string.

No doubt he has some interesting videos.

Yes he did and quite well at that. At best patterns are a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional event..mb

Bob Brister wrote about this years ago. Had his wife pull plywood sheets on a trailer to test shot strings. Interesting read.
Hasbeen

The siginficance of "shot string" is an interesting discussion, and one we've had here before. What is seems Bob Brister showed is that when swinging a gun and firing, it will produce an elipitcal pattern. As far as I know, he did this before high speed photography for such things were available. I have not read what he thinks his experiments practically meant. Perhaps nothing more than that there is a shot string and shooting at a moving target will produce an elipitcal pattern. But intuitively, that was known before he did it. All shots with shot that spread will produce a shot string. The pellets that fly straightest from the muzzle will hit first. Pellets spreading will lag behind those that travel straight from the muzzle, and since they are not moving exactly perpendicular to the target, they are traveling a farther distance and will get there at a different time than the pellets that are. Shot stringing is inevitiable and one can only prevent it, and then only some, by eliminating any spread at all.

There's been a lot of shot string experiments since that have tried to determine the effect, and it seems most of these have concluded that it doesn't mean that much.

Here's one on HeviShot. Pretty interesting read.

https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/long-shot-string-vs-short-shot-string/100155