Spartans: are they really that good?


PDA






ds92
August 27, 2008, 01:34 AM
Hello all, in my most recent quest for an overall hunting scattergun i have come across the remington spartan. I liked the ejectors and the general feel of the gun, and the price tag was especially attractive, but are they really good? or would i be better off with a used browning cynergy or beretta o/u? :confused: I'm on a tight budget here so every dollar counts.

ANY advice is appreciated. Thanks

If you enjoyed reading about "Spartans: are they really that good?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
romeo212000
August 27, 2008, 02:06 AM
Check out the Yildiz O/U at Academy. Much better gun than the spartan and prettier too.

chas08
August 27, 2008, 07:08 AM
or would i be better off with a used browning cynergy or beretta o/u?

Yes you would, but I doubt for the same money. Spartans are essentially a russian Baikal shotgun, I own three, and they're OK but they ain't no Browning or Berreta.:)

WIFF
August 27, 2008, 07:38 AM
I like mine, it hits what i aim at and works everytime, also the price allows you to use it in all situations without fear of scratching, getting it dirty or wet...... i have seen people with more expensive guns afraid to use them.:banghead:

Matt-J2
August 27, 2008, 08:09 AM
Everyone should have at least one hanging about, just in case the Persians invade! :p

MCgunner
August 27, 2008, 09:35 AM
Check out the Yildiz O/U at Academy. Much better gun than the spartan and prettier too.

In what way are they "much better". :rolleyes: Point of fact, I think the Russian built Spartans are far better as tools than much of the Turkish stuff, though I like the looks of the Yildiz, is a little better to look at. But, I really doubt it shoots any better than my Spartan and I doubt it will shoot as long before getting loose, which really isn't a concern with most guns for most folks unless you're one of those 100K rounds a weekend guys that shoot clays. Then, you're probably not going to want a cheap O/U, won't impress your shooting buddies and that seems to be more important to clay shooters than function. Of course, fit matters. If the Yildiz fits you better, go for it.

No, these guns are NOT equivalent to the higher end stuff, but they're quite functional in the field and I like the way my Spartan shoots just fine. Spartans are built strong and that's a good thing for a field gun way I see it. You won't impress you gun club buddies with one, but that was never a priority of mine. It ain't the gun that does the shooting, it's the guy behind it. I don't think I could shoot a Browning any better, though I'd love to own one.

oletymer
August 27, 2008, 10:00 AM
The Cynergy and Berettas are light years better than the guns being suggested.

PJR
August 27, 2008, 10:22 AM
The Cynergy and Berettas are light years better than the guns being suggested.
That is true but also many times more expensive.

The Spartan (aka Baikal) aren't pretty, nor refined but they are inexpensive and of the inexpensive category are the best of the lot. The Turkish Delights are often very pretty but I'd rather pay for solid than pretty in that price range.

Virginian
August 27, 2008, 10:27 AM
I have a Stevens version, and I have to say I like it. It is not a "best" gun, or a featherweight Bernadelli Woodcock, it is a Russian gun. The AK-47 taught me something about guns. They work. The oversized trigger guard looks a little strange until it is cold as hell and you have gloves on. It always goes bang and the shot goes where you had it pointed. It feels better than it looks.

romeo212000
August 27, 2008, 10:39 AM
I say the Yildiz is better because I notice the wood to metal fit is much tighter, and the balance is far superior. It is not a Cortona or Caesar Guerini but in my opinion is the best gun on the market for the money for looks and function. Plus it is a pretty lightweight gun so it makes it much easier to carry in the field. As far as Turkish guns being "pretty" but not reliable, I have put close to 4,000 rounds through mine and have not noticed one bit of loosening.

Kansas Bound
August 27, 2008, 10:48 AM
I guess I do not understand why more people dont buy the Beretta 391 new for $550 or a used Benelli M-1 for $600 compared to something similar to Spartans. It would seem you could get your money back out of a Beretta or Benelli a lot easier if you wanted something better down the road.

ImARugerFan
August 27, 2008, 10:50 AM
I guess I do not understand why more people dont buy the Beretta 391 new for $550 or a used Benelli M-1 for $600 compared to something similar to Spartans. It would seem you could get your money back out of a Beretta or Benelli a lot easier if you wanted something better down the road.

Well... he's looking for an o/u, so buying an auto wouldn't really make sense.

Kansas Bound
August 27, 2008, 10:54 AM
AH now I see what the debate is all about. Sorry I totally missed the mark on this one.

chas08
August 27, 2008, 11:09 AM
No, these guns are NOT equivalent to the higher end stuff, but they're quite functional in the field

The above is a very accurate description of the three Baikals I own. A 16, 20 & 28ga. Mine are SxS, the 28, I've owned the longest and has the most rounds through it. Probably approaching 3K I got mine before Remington became involved so I have less than $800 tied up in all three brand new. To compare them to Brownings (I once owned a Citori) or a Berreta (my dream O/U) isn't a fair comparison. Kinda like comparing Cadillacs to Volkswagen Beetles. Mine have been good functional, reliable guns for the money.:)

MCgunner
August 28, 2008, 02:19 PM
The Yildiz I tried didn't really have enough drop for me. The Spartan is decent, but was short of pull length. Adding a recoil pad to it fixed that. To me, my little 20 gauge Spartan fits better than the Yildiz did. Fit and handling and weight bias is an individual preference thing way I see it. As tools, the Yildiz may be better than the Spartan if it fits YOU better. I think they're good guns, just don't consider 'em any better built, maybe better fit and finished, but not better built than my Spartan. The stock overlaps on the Spartan a bit, the checkering looks pressed, the wood is bland, there's no engraving or adornment, but it fits and shoots just fine. It'll never win a beauty contest, but that ain't what matters to me in the field. My Mossberg 500 is pretty danged ugly, too. LOL Kinda like the camo finish, though.

Check out the Yildiz. You may prefer the fit. The finish is easier on the eyes. I think they're good guns, not running 'em down, I just don't think they're "a lot better" than the Spartan as a hunting tool. Just ain't so. I'd give the nod to the Spartan for strength. Actually seems a little over-built. I don't think I'd wear either one of 'em out in MY lifetime, though. Of course, at 55, I ain't got all THAT much lifetime left, I guess.

guninthewater
August 28, 2008, 04:18 PM
Yes, they kicked some serious butt at Thermopylae. :neener:

Oldnamvet
August 28, 2008, 04:24 PM
Bad joke. You're spending too much time on the History channel.:neener:

MCgunner
August 28, 2008, 07:45 PM
Bad joke. You're spending too much time on the History channel.

Oh, well, give him a break. Beats the convention.:D

loosecannon
August 28, 2008, 08:04 PM
My experience has been good with the 20 ga double.

loosecannon

camoman33935
August 28, 2008, 09:54 PM
what about a Stoeger Condor? It's in the same price range,I think

If you enjoyed reading about "Spartans: are they really that good?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!