Browning Field vs sporting O/U

[JMPhoto]

I am looking at the Cynergy classic field but I also noticed the Cynergy classic sporting. I plan on using this gun for sporting clays, skeet and the occasional/fun trap shoots at the club. I also plan on doing some pheasant hunts and possibly duck. The sporting is almost 1K more in price. What does it give me other than the ported barrels and extended chokes? I plan on adding the extended chokes anyway.

 

[oneounceload]

It is usually heavier since it's a target gun - a big plus when you're shooting a lot

 

[ArmedBear]

The ported barrels aren't a "plus" in my book. No real impact on shooting, but loud and a lot harder to clean.

If you plan on hunting with anyone else, don't get a ported gun.

 

[oletymer]

The sporting model has less drop at the comb and heel. It has a better grade wood. You can also get 30 or 32 inch barrels. I don't know for sure but the field model may have an automatic safety, a pain in the butt shooting competition. I use my sporting model for hunting and there is no problem as we don't sit or walk right next to each other.

 

[ArmedBear]

The auto safety is primarily a pain in the butt for competition if you have some guns with them and some without them, as I do.

Usually, they can be removed easily, if you want.

 

[waterhouse]

I just checked mine, the Cynergy Field doesn't have an auto safety.

Like AB, I prefer the non-ported barrels, so I went with the Field. I really like it.

ETA: I don't have the Classic Field, mine has the weird looking (but functional) recoil pad.

Based on the numbers posted from Browning, the Field model has 3" chambers while the Sporting model has 2 3/4".

When comparing both in 12 gauge with 28" barrels, the Field actually is listed as 2 ounces heavier. The Sporting has an extra .5" length of pull at 14.75, vs 14.25 for the field. Also slightly different dimension for the drop at heel and comb.

 

[Milkmaster]

If you have the oportunity, mount them both to your shoulder and see which fits you better. The better fit model is the one to choose!

 

[ArmedBear]

I like the "weird-looking" Cynergy better.

Yes, it's a non-traditional look, but it's well-integrated, with lines that fit together well. The thing points like a SxS IMO. Hard to believe it says "Browning" on it.

The Classic looks like exactly what it is: a traditional stock grafted as an afterthought onto a receiver of a very different style. I like the new recoil pad design, too; it works well enough to be copied by a number of manufacturers in one way or another (Franchi, Remington, et al.). The Classic takes away the recoil pad design, and IMO it's not all that attractive, if that's what they were going for.

 

[waterhouse]

I like the "weird-looking" Cynergy better.

Me too. I was torn on the looks at first, but they've grown on me. People often do a double take when they see it though.

The 686 line always fit me better and felt better than the Citoris, but I actually sold my 686 in 12 after getting the Cynergy. Funny thing is that I still prefer my 686 in 20 to the Cynergy in 20. Either way, I'm glad Browning came out with it. The recoil pad would make stock fitting a pain, but mine fit out of the box, so thankfully a non issue. It really does work pretty well too.

 

[ArmedBear]

The recoil pad would make stock fitting a pain, but mine fit out of the box, so thankfully a non issue.

Yeah. It happens to fit me, too. Otherwise, I guess it wouldn't be so great.

Doesn't Browning offer different pads, though, to adjust LOP? Within some limits, that might work really well, since this pad allows for a lot of variation.

 

[waterhouse]

Good point. They do make different length pads and they have a (I think) quarter inch plastic spacer as well that I think comes with the gun but mine was used, so I don't know if the previous owner bought it separately or not.