Quantcast

beretta 3901 citizen vs. 391 urika2 synthetic

Discussion in 'Shotguns' started by flyboy1788, Nov 30, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. flyboy1788

    flyboy1788 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    317
    What are the main differences between these besides one costs more?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2008
  2. Snarlingiron

    Snarlingiron Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,362
    Location:
    Fort Worth, Texas (Where men are men, and a lot of
    The 3901 is essentially the same gun as the A390. It has a simpler gas compensating system than the 391.

    I personally prefer the older 390 / 3901 system over the newer 391. I believe the 391 system was a solution to a non-existent problem, and it is more complex, and makes the gun harder to completely disassemble and re-assemble. A task that is very easy and simple with the 390. I believe that there is also some back boring and other meaningless marketing nonsense going on with the Urika.

    I have a buddy that has the 391 Urika synthetic. I have shot it a fair amount. Great shotgun, but I have an older A390, and a newer AL390, and I wouldn't trade either one of them for his Urika. In all fairness, he hits more clays than I do, but he does that regardless of which shotgun he is using.

    If I were in the market for a new shotgun, it would without question be the 3901 for me. First, I just prefer the design, and second, it helps keep some genuine Americans in a job up in Accokeek, MD.

    Just my opinion. Some folks shoot skeet, some play Pinochle, it's what makes the world go 'round.
     
  3. flyboy1788

    flyboy1788 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    317
    thanks for your input snarlington, but what was that non-existent problem you are referring to?
     
  4. PJR

    PJR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    1,718
    I've owned both a 390 and a 391. Both are very good guns. I don't agree however that the 391 is an answer to a non-existent question.

    The 391 is more accomodating to light loads. From 3" to 7/8's ounce all are fed without complaint. I could not say the same thing about the 390. The narrower forend of the 391 is also more user friendly and I find the 391 balances better than the older gun.

    While the 391 is more complex to take down, I've also found the 391 can go longer between cleanings than the 390.

    These are not earth-shattering improvements however and the 390 remains one of the best semi-auto shotguns on the market today.
     
  5. Snarlingiron

    Snarlingiron Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,362
    Location:
    Fort Worth, Texas (Where men are men, and a lot of
    PJR referred to it. I have never had any problems with light loads in either of my 390's.

    He is right, the 391 will go longer without cleaning, but I am a bit of a fanatic about gun cleaning, so this is not an issue for me. The ease of cleaning is. It occurs to me that my always serviced and lubricated guns may be the reason I haven't had any issues with my 390's and light loads.

    Again, the 391 is a great shotgun, I just prefer the 390. That's just me. I'm just stating my opinion...it's no better or worse than anyone else's.
     
  6. Pete409

    Pete409 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Florida
    I agree with Snarlingiron. Beretta introduced the 391 as a marketing strategy, not because it was an improvement over the 390. I've shot many 7/8 ounce loads out of my 390 with no problems whatsoever. I also know several shooters who shoot the 390 every week and they clean their guns about every 2 years whether it's needed or not.

    The narrower forend of the 391 is only more "user friendly" if you've got small hands or if a small grip is what you prefer. Personally, I prefer the fuller forend of the 390. The larger 390 forend fits my hand better and I don't have to "scrunch" my fingers up as much to hold onto it.

    Balance of either gun (or ANY gun) is strictly a personal preference issue, so I see no advantage of either gun over the other. It's all in what you like. Besides, balance can be and often is changed for a variety of reasons such as recoil reduction, adjustable cheek pieces, adjustable butt pads, etc.

    There can be no dispute, however, that the 391 is considerably more complicated to clean. Also, many of the 391's had feeding problems due to a faulty carrier design. Beretta claims to have fixed the problem, yet the problem still show up frequently today. The 390's had no such problem.

    By making changes every few years, Beretta can convince SOME shooters to trade their "old" guns for the "latest and greatest" new model. This is Marketing 101.......... and apparently it works. :)
     
  7. flyboy1788

    flyboy1788 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    317
    thanks for your input guys, i clean my guns religiously after every use anyways so that is not my primary concern. I like simplicity, reliability, and I like designs that are proven. It seems that from what I gather the 3901 is simpler, but aside from that, they are toe to toe in all the other categories. I am only a poor college student now anyways, but some day im gonna get me a beretta:D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice