Are high-end O/U shotguns worth the price?

beyond a certain point it's all about ego and prestige. in reality it's about the guy behind the gun that makes it look accurate. have beaten guys with very pricey ou shotguns with my 870 many times. I appreciate a well made shotgun but the prices are thru the roof and not worth it IMHO. YMMV.

Yes. For high volume, competitive shooting, the Krieghoffs, Blazers, Perazzis etc., offer durability and rebuildability beyond what the entry level B guns offer. Beretta and Guerini do offer excellent guns in the middle ground that are probably as good as the $15k offerings but they don’t (yet?) have the reputations to go with them. There’s definitely a reputation premium that reflects perception.

It’s all very well someone saying my x-gun is as good as that y-gun, but until they are shooting 2500 rounds a week and their x-gun is consistently holding up, it’s idle conjecture.

Everything is worth the price if you want it enough.

It's the same as it with pistols.
Is my Taurus G3C as good as my G19 or P365?
Yep, for the first couple thousand rounds it's every bit as good.
I have a Stoeger Condor 12ga that I occasionally shoot clay, squirrels, and rabits with. Is it as good as my Citori ???
The clay pigeons and squirrels can't tell the difference, but I ain't taking that Citori in the swamp as long as that Condor still works.
Otherwise I have no illusions that my Condor is as good as my Citori.

The Krieghoff K-80 Over/Under Shotguns have many adjustment that can be fine tuned. Check the owners manual. https://krieghoff.com/resources/#user-manuals

I will made do with my Citories.

I have had a AA trap average since I was about 16. I held a spot on the All-State team in 1981. I may have been the Jr member of the team. But my handicap average was 3rd in the state and 19th in the nation that year. Those are official ATA numbers. My dad and I knew all the players. We were about as deep into the sport as you can get. I broke 24 100x100s including one from 24 yds. I did most of that with a model 12 Winchester. I did break several 100s with my current gun, an 870 Competition.
I said all that to say this....you don't have to have a high-end gun to break the targets....but it doesn't hurt.
Balance, lock time, stock dynamics, specialty bore machining, good triggers, point-ability , recoil mitigation, pattern control allplay a part in your ability to muck your way through 100 birds without raising your head and missing one...or two....or three......

I shoot trap with a Winchester SXP Defender wearing a 28" barrel (barrel minimum length restriction at the club is 22", I think, or was it 24"? It's blurry right now). It is difficult to find a gun less appropriate or more out of place at the club. Maybe I did for a short time with a Baïkal SxS, but it died after only a case or so of shooting, and is still not repaired, might never be. All sorts of comments heard, in every direction, on both guns at the club. I would like to (not need to) eventually own and shoot a real trap gun. I think, even if evidently less talented than Armored farmer, that these dedicated, purpose oriented shotguns are simply better tools. Meanwhile, I bought an improved modified extended choke for less than 100$. Have always shot modified until I will try it. Will see in time if I finally get motivated enough to spend 3000$-4000$ for a decent entry level piece. Had no problem doing that for a specialized rifle, even if it is a huge amount for me. I just haven't been able to do the same for a shotgun yet, it just doesn't compute in my mind. I have an eye on a nice used BT-99 at 1800$, could not bring myself to buy it. Not yet. A Browning SxS could also be bought for doubles, spotted a nice one full-modified. One proper and one cool don't equal one built for the task with a single and a double barrel, but I don't shoot enough volume to make it necessary. A 25 000$ to 300 000$ piece? Yes, absolutely, in my dreams! Are they worth the difference? Probably. I mean, they are gorgeous, efficient and durable. Would these make me a better shot? A little, I guess, but not 299 650$ better, I doubt it. I will most likely never know.

I happily agree with AF. I've never had the "top" end shotguns but have had a few middle range ones. I hold my own in our three leagues with my TB that my body has fit itself around since 1975. That said, I've had to replace, at various times, the trigger assembly, receiver, firing pins, forend metal, and extractor. Butt, barrel and bolt are original.
Higher end guns would probably have lasted better with fewer parts breakages.
I'd rather spend my money on shells.

From my perspective and not being a fine shotgun aficionado, my grail over/under was always a Browning Citori. Was able to get a very nice, lightly used one 6 years ago. Folks at sporting clays have told me that I'll never wear it out in my lifetime unless I get to shooting thousands of rounds annually. The competitive guys do regard them as "entry level" compared to some of their guns but I suppose it all boils down to how hardcore you wish to get with the sport. I began shooting better the first time I ever took the Citori out and it will someday be part of my son's inheritance.

I hardly feel qualified to reply, being a mere B class shooter when a regular shooter, but I was a B class shooter with an 1100 or a Perazzi. The 1100 kicked less, though, so I shot singles and handicap with it, saving the O/U for doubles.

I had a Citori which I did not get B scores with, so I sold it to a guy who just flat wore it out... and replaced it with another Citori.

It is funny but I don’t really notice recoil with my TB, my 1100, or my BT99. I did with my old 101 and my Charles Daley.
My Ithaca 100 20 is bad.

Years ago, I asked a friend why his $100 tennis racket was better than the one I paid $10 for at K-Mart. His answer. "In your hands not a bit of difference, but I can do things with my $100 tennis racket that I can't do with your $10 tennis racket."

That would apply to shotguns with me. I'm far from an expert, but even I can tell a huge difference between some of the $500 doubles and $5000 guns just by handling them. And I've found that I get many more hits with certain guns.

But for me a Benelli or Beretta semi-auto selling under $1500 is about as good as it gets. Spending any more would be a waste for me. But that doesn't mean someone else couldn't justify the costs.

In the 1990's, I shot competitive skeet. A Browning Citori or Beretta 686 were considered the minimum. Remington 1100 or the Beretta equivalent were considered good for 12 gauge and doubles. I shot a tubed Skeet grade Citori and won HOA in Class D in the early 1990s (1993 if i remember correctly) at the GA state championship.

You have to consider, top skeet shooters shoot ammunition by the pallet loads and there for shoots lots of rounds through their guns.

But, proper fit of the shotgun is also important. I did OK with my factory fitted Citori, but I am sure if I spent the money to get a gun properly fitted, I may have done better.

Bottom line, one can do well in competition with an "off the shelf" gun, but you have to go all out with top quality shotgun and proper fitting to even have a chance at winning at the top levels.

I have a Citori 725 skeet grade that I plan to have tubed so that it can take some of the load off my 1990 vintage competition gun. I'm just a casual skeet shooter these days.

I think " are "worth their price" to the right user. But not really to me. I "make do" with a Beretta with an adjustable comb for about $3000. That was an big improvement over my field gun I was shooting. But...I shoot at a major trap shooting course a few months each year. Many, many very high end guns being shot. And everybody seems like they think they are "worth it". I know the that nobody there cares what anybody else shoots much. They just keep checking the number of targets you break.,

Roverguy said:

Yes. For high volume, competitive shooting, the Krieghoffs, Blazers, Perazzis etc., offer durability and rebuildability beyond what the entry level B guns offer. Beretta and Guerini do offer excellent guns in the middle ground that are probably as good as the $15k offerings but they don’t (yet?) have the reputations to go with them. There’s definitely a reputation premium that reflects perception.

It’s all very well someone saying my x-gun is as good as that y-gun, but until they are shooting 2500 rounds a week and their x-gun is consistently holding up, it’s idle conjecture.

Click to expand...

I shoot skeet with a guy that has close to 750k rounds through his Beretta 680...been in the shop twice, once for lever replacement and second time for an update and cleaning. I have close to 400k through my 687, in shop once...had 32" barrels fitted and while there a cleaning and repair/replace anything that needed it...they replaced all springs. Also shoot with (7) other guys that have Krieghoff's that are always "in the shop"...I have no idea if the guns are that bad or the guys just like to have the guns cleaned, 100% factory or whatever. Again, I cannot say the K-gun is not reliable, but based off the guys I shoot with that have them, it seems that way, the B-guns on the other hand, seem to run fine.

To me, it’s like the Timex vs Rolex. Both tell the same time. But it’s how you want to be perceived. Are those Perazzi/Kriegoff/etc better in most people’s eyes, yes. But even if you cannot afford one, you can still get out there and shoot clays with an old 870, Mossberg or Winchester just fine.
It’s more the Indian, not the bow.
I personally wouldn’t own a $15-25k shotgun, because it wouldn’t matter to me. But I would like a Benelli 391/A400 for bird hunting. That to me is high brow. To others, that’s too bottom of the barrel.
That’s ok. There’s room for both of us and that’s why both are made.

jmr40 said:

Years ago, I asked a friend why his $100 tennis racket was better than the one I paid $10 for at K-Mart. His answer. "In your hands not a bit of difference, but I can do things with my $100 tennis racket that I can't do with your $10 tennis racket."

That would apply to shotguns with me. I'm far from an expert, but even I can tell a huge difference between some of the $500 doubles and $5000 guns just by handling them. And I've found that I get many more hits with certain guns.

But for me a Benelli or Beretta semi-auto selling under $1500 is about as good as it gets. Spending any more would be a waste for me. But that doesn't mean someone else couldn't justify the costs.

Click to expand...

My question after that would be what things? And then what things can it do that a $20-$50 can not?

IMHO there comes a time when you just buy the name, and with the subject in question art. There is a term in the guitar world called cork sniffers. People have come to realize that an Epiphone can be a MUCH better guitar over a Gibson. When an Epi can cost you $500, or a Gibson $5000 you get some things that are a bit better, but on the whole not better. There is a guitar shop in the UK called andersons, they would do blindfolded side by sides, what do you like better. The results interesting to say the least.

To answer the OP's question from my point of view.

So then why are the Perazzi and Krieghoff guns worth so much more? What is there about these guns that justifies the price differential?

They are worth so much more because people will pay more for them. And what justifies, the name.

People that spend that kind of money, be it a Gibson guitar or Krieghoff feel the need to justify it some way or another. Sticking your nose in the air at others is one way to do it.

There is a chick flick that my wife loves, we have it on DVD. Called Overboard, (not the remake) and at one point the Kurt Russell character says. " That a nice Weatherby you have there" to that the guy replies, "it is a very expensive gun I have lots and lots of them"

That is what many of the people want, now if they admit it to themselves that is another question. I have a feeling we are hearing from some now.

Glockpride said:

To me, it’s like the Timex vs Rolex. Both tell the same time. But it’s how you want to be perceived. Are those Perazzi/Kriegoff/etc better in most people’s eyes, yes. But even if you cannot afford one, you can still get out there and shoot clays with an old 870, Mossberg or Winchester just fine.
It’s more the Indian, not the bow.
I personally wouldn’t own a $15-25k shotgun, because it wouldn’t matter to me. But I would like a Benelli 391/A400 for bird hunting. That to me is high brow. To others, that’s too bottom of the barrel.
That’s ok. There’s room for both of us and that’s why both are made.

Click to expand...

I love watches, I am a watch nerd. Not a good analogy really. There are no "battery powered" Rolex watches. All but very few Timex watches are battery powered, and those that are not use a Miyota movement.....the guts in the watch.

If you look at something a little better, lets do Timex automatics, vs. Tudor, vs Rolex, vs. Omega. If you are not a watch guy Tudor is a "sub brand" of Rolex.

The timex uses a movement made by another company, this is real common in the watch world, so "under the skin" some watches are the exact same. Outsourced movements are very common, and not always a bad thing. Big plus if you own a watch that uses an "outsourced" movement about anyone that works on watches can fix it. It is used everywhere. Lets call these the Turkish shotguns that get branded under other companies names.

Omega uses its own "in house" movement, but the Swatch group (Swatch owns Omega) sells SOME of those movements to other companies.

Tudor and Rolex use their own "in house" movement but do not sell them to anyone else. That movement is in that watch (sometimes other watches in the company line will use the same movement) and that is it.

Now it gets to the well then what is the difference between a $5000 Tudor and a $25,000 Rolex. Both watches are fantastic watches, both carry "papers" by the swiss that say how great they are. But why is one so much more......you know already the name, just like the shot gun, the name. It is what you say about yourself when you wear a rolex. Both good and bad. Same with the shotguns.

Now what some people want is to have a very fine watch, and "fly under the radar", buy something that no one knows about, how many people that are not watch people know names like Tudor and Ball. Other times a company will sell a watch, or shotgun that costs $50, alongside of watches that cost $10k, Seiko is a company like this, and unless you know what you are looking at you don't know. And people IMHO that have nothing to prove generally wear things like this.

Swinging back to shotguns, I think that after you get past having a gun "fitted" to just you, it turns into a "hay look at me".

I have not been playing shotgun sports for very long, and I shoot an old A5 because I like old things, and I do ok. I don't seem to hit any more when I borrow a very expensive shotgun, and the people with the very expensive shot guns seem to have scores within the margin of error when using my old gun.

I say it is nothing more then a status symbol after you get past the door to a "fitted gun for you" area.

One last thing in the watch area, that $5.99 hello kitty digital watch at the Walmart checkout line will keep more accurate time then the most expensive mechanical watch. But we already know it is not about telling time.

I have a Browning Citori and love the gun for sporting clays and upland bird hunting. One time at a sporting clays course the group behind us caught up and I was talking with them while they waited for my party to finish and one of their party let me shoot their Krieghoff K-80. It was hard to go back to my beloved Citori, I have shoot few rifles with a trigger as nice as that K-80.

On the other hand I outshot a guy fairly consistently on the Skeet field shooting my lowly Winchester 9410, shucking that lever on the doubles and he was shooting his fancy four barrel set O/U in 410.

I personally think those high end guns are probably worth the price if your going to use them enough. That said the Indian is still more important than the arrow. I watch a kid at my local trap and skeet range run a perfect 25 on the skeet range with and 870 Express held upside down over his shoulder, taking all the recoil with his hands. Indian > Arrow.

As mentioned…it’s not the bow, it’s the Indian. I had a set of Winchester 101’s (4 different guns), with an interesting story to the 12ga…long story short…a guy wanted to buy it, after bugging me for about 6 months I gave him a price, he also he had to purchase all of them or none. The price was out of line for what they were, but I didn’t really want to sell them, but would at that price, in the end he purchased them leaving me without a gun. At the time I was fortunate to be shooting with a HOA skeet shooter and asked what he would purchase with “X” amount of money, he said a Beretta 687 Diamond Pigeon without hesitation, the next day I found one out of Texas and have been happy with it for the last 20 years. I’m a buy once, cry once guy…this gun will out last me and probably the next guy that gets it after I die. Through the years, I’ve shot with guys that have tons of round through their guns and one thing sticks out…the K, P and B gun seem to be the most robust out of them all…most Brownings do not seem to hold up as well…I’m talking 10-20k per year…year in and year out. Although the BT-99 seems to be the exception to the rule, they seem to take a beating and keep going…

The neat thing in shooting something old like an A5, is others want to shoot it as well. For different reasons, a toss back to old days, see what the deal is with them....whatever. This has given me a chance to try a few other things as well as seeing how someone who is "good" at this does with my gun. To the Indian comment, they always smoke me, they could shoot a sling shot and still win. But the thing that is interesting is the scores, about the same. They comment on comfort or something hard to qualify of theirs but that is about it. Me I generally shoot a little worse with the borrowed gun, but not that worse. After I figure it out I hit the ones I always hit and miss the ones I always miss.

how many of us here know any one who shoots over 14 boxs of shells a day, day in and day out. thats about how many you have shoot to get to 2500 rounds a week. run it to a year and you have shot 130,000 shells or about 520 boxs . if my math is close.

eastbank said:

how many of us here know any one who shoots over 14 boxs of shells a day, day in and day out. thats about how many you have shoot to get to 2500 rounds a week. run it to a year and you have shot 130,000 shells or about 520 boxs . if my math is close.

Click to expand...

Do you know any astronauts ? If not, are you suggesting that space travel is a fantasy?

2500 rounds a week is not unusual for competitive shooters - and, no, I don’t mean the chaps in your Trap League. And yes, I do know people that shoot that much. And no, it’s probably not every single week of the year.