Speed loading 3in vs 3.5in with 2.75” shells

[chadnick]

I am a beginner looking at getting a new 3gun shotgun.  Would it be easier to load a 3.5” shotgun tube fast with 2.75” shells versus a 3” shotgun tube fast with 2.75” shells? I know a lot of it comes down to practicing, but it seems like there would be more room on the 3.5” if the loading port is longer. Thanks for your help.

Edited June 18, 2020 by chadnick

[kurtm]

Well the tube doesn't care how long the shells are. In general it is harder to get the 3.5" guns to run 3-gun type shells we use reliably, but it can be done. I myself prefer a smaller port, but I don't load like you. Everytime I try a "long" receiver gun I feel like I'm throwing a hotdog down a hallway!

[AustinT]

My first auto shotgun was a benelli SBE (3.5”). I learned to quad load on it - later I switched to an M1 and M2 (both 3”). I tried the SBE again after many years thinking it might be faster to quad load, but I found it didn’t make a difference. That extra space is all back at the back where your thumb is, and your thumb just doesn’t really care about or notice it.

[OnVacation]

On 6/18/2020 at 4:22 PM, kurtm said:

In general it is harder to get the 3.5" guns to run 3-gun type shells we use reliably, but it can be done. 

This is true. I run a 3.5" gun, and in order to keep reliability high at matches, I run high brass 100% of the time. Mine will cycle cheap stuff 90% of the time, but 1 failure in 10 during matches is unacceptable. Pheasant loads on the other hand run superb, I can run a more open choke, I can two-fer more often, flip spinners with ease, and normally finish with a slightly sore shoulder...

 

And of you run a 3.5 gun, you have an excuse to being Turkey loads to a match for those dang spinners.