piketon_hunter#9

thats why i went with the three inch, i wanted to take advantage of my rifled barrel and scope. the 2 3/4 shoot flat at 100, and the 3 in will get you out to 125 with no drop

Paul L Mohr

Depends on the load you pick, some 2 3/4 inch loads are faster than some 3 inch loads, you really need to do your homework in that area before you buy them. Boils down to the powder charge and weight of the bullet, not the length of the shell. Normally 3 inch shells are used to get more shot which isn't a concern with a sabot slug.

Paul

piketon_hunter#9

thats what im sayin, i have done my homework on the lightfields, the 3inshoot flat out to 125 yards and the 2 3/4 in shoots flat out to 100.

piketon_hunter#9

if you dont believe me go to lightfields website

Canned Heat

My gun spits the Hornady SST's too good to try anything else....however, Outdoor Life did a slug/sabot test and Lightfields were the accuracy King, according to their tests.

SWThomas

I agree, it is my gun. My gun doesn't like cheap ammo. I'm referring to the Winchester Sport Shells that sell for $20 for a box of 100 at Wal-Mart. I shot a whole 100 shell box of that ammo and had 16 stoppages of different kinds. I came back the next day and shot a whole 100 shell box of Remington Sport Shells and didn't have one stoppage. That tells me that the issue is the ammo.

Paul L Mohr

You miss understood me I guess, I wasn't referring to only lightfield slugs, but all the slugs available on the market. Just because it is a 3 inch doesn't mean it will always be faster than a 2 3/4.

Take for instance the lightfield hybrid is 1750 fps in a 3 inch shell. Compare that to these other rounds.

Winchester Gold partition 385 grn at 1900 fps (probably why they didn't work to well in your gun, too light and fast would be my guess).

Wichester Platinum tip 400 grn at 1700 fps

Federal Barnes Expander 328 grn at 1900 fps

Remington Accutip 385 grn at 1850 fps

Remington corelokt ultra 385 grn at 1900 fps

Hornady SST 300 grn at 2000 fps

These are all 2 3/4 inch shells and as you can see depending on how they are loaded they can be just as fast or faster than a 3 inch load, shell length really means nothing with this type of ammo. There are also various 3 inch loads that fall in the 1500 fps range. I'm just saying don't just assume because it's a 3 inch magnum it will be faster and flatter, that is not always the case.

And some guns will prefer one over another, take for instance the winchester Super X sabot slugs. The difference between the 2 3/4 and 3 inch shell is only 50 fps, not really noticable trajectory wise, I bet they don't even hold that close of tolerance on a chronograph from shot to shot. Yet I have seen a few guns shoot great with the 2 3/4 inch rounds and shoot like crap with the 3 inch loads. When they are basically the same exact load. Go figure. Slugs guns really are quite finicky sometimes.


And I normally have the exact opposite findings between remington and winchester. Every gun I have had wouldn't shoot cheap remington ammo worth a darn, be it a shotgun or a .22. Lots of duds and missfires. Where as the cheap winchester ammo works without a hitch for the most part. Lets be honest, cheap bulk ammo is cheap bulk ammo for a reason. Maybe your gun just likes remington ammo better. It happens.

Paul

piketon_hunter#9

the partition golds worked great, the xp3's were terrible through my gun. dissapointing because ive heard other people say good things about them. the lightfields have considerably more lead, 546gr. compared to 385, id rather have the lead than the extra 200 fps. i understand what youre saying about the smaller slugs, i just like the specs of the lightfields in 3in because they shoot almost as fast with that much lead.