Skeet with a 686 and 391 12ga

[nody]

My local DFW range, Elm Forks for you locals that care, rents only Berettas. They are beat up range guns, bent ribs, missing beads, rust, filthy but they work without interuption; a testimony to Beretta.

The o/u's go for $20 and the autos $15 a day. A round of skeet/trap is $8.50 or $75.00 for a 10 round card. No one ever said Elm Forks was cheap. That's one of the reasons I have been driving double the miles to Alpine Gun Range in S. Ft Worth where prices are more reasonable and there is a varied grab bag of rental guns, time permitting. But I wanted another try at the Berettas.

Elm Forks also has the time delay capable target controller so it's great for solo practice undisturbed. I was working station 2/3 & 5/6 only this particular day.

I've been studying several books, trying to refine position, stance, etc. I hadn't shot the either Beretta in a few months.

I loved the fit and feel of the 686, the recoil (Federal 1 1/8 oz promos) actually felt better (not less, just better) than the 391 (more below), but I could not hit anything with it for two boxes of shells. Literally, I missed the first 15 shots, took a break, and missed at least half of of the rest. I was dumbfounded and about ready to call the day a writeoff and go home.

The bores looked reasonably clean. Obviously I don't know how this round patterns in this gun, but I'd used the same ammo in the 686 a few months before and shot in the high teens/low 20's.

Maybe it was the bent rib and missing front bead.

God, I gotta get my own gun!

The one thing I could put my thumb on was I felt like I was trying to swing a 4x4 piece of lumber; not too heavy, just too cumbersome.

I went back to the office and swapped the 28" 686 for a 28" 391, a beat up one. I nailed the first 15 and only dropped a handfull for 5 more boxes of shells. The gun swung so much better for me. Shouldn't the double bbls should improve the stability of the swing?

I hated the feel of the cycling of the 391 action though; it reminded me of grinding your teeth. Very "crunchy" and jerky, and noticebly different when there was a second round in the magazine (worse) or the bolt locked open (better). It seemed worse than I remember from the last time I shot the 391 and worse than the SX2 I'd been shooting at Alpine.

Any of you aces have any thoughts?

 

[oneounceload]

Sounds more like the stock on the semi fit you better. Were you seeing a lot of rib with the O/U? If so, you were shooting over the birds.

One thing to try if you can is a Browning. Both B guns are good, but stock dimensions are different enough that if one fits you, odds are the other one won't. The Browning might be a better fit. Otherwise, have someone watch your mount and see what you're doing - you might be pulling your head off the stock, moving it along the stock, or any of a number of similar things that will result in misses

 

[ArmedBear]

Shouldn't the double bbls should improve the stability of the swing?

Not necessarily. I have a 28" 12 Gauge 686 that is pretty light. Nice field gun, and I shoot clays with it. But a 28" 391 probably does carry your swing through more naturally. Also, a regular 12 Gauge 391 (not a special lightweight model) weighs almost a pound more than a regular current-production 12 Gauge 686 field gun.

Beretta makes Sporting versions of the 686. They're heavier, and the 12s have 30" or 32" barrels, as well.

Remember: a receiver gun is a few inches longer than a break-action, all else being equal.

WRT fit, unless it's shimmed differently, a stock 390/391 and a stock 686/687 have very similar fit IMO and IME.

Now here's a guess... You may know if it applies to you. With the 686, try a loose hold with your forward hand, with your index and middle fingers pointed where you want to shoot. Just rest the gun there. Then, consciously keep up your swing as you pull the trigger. I find that, if I do that, the 28" 686 is a hell of a skeet gun.

 

[nody]

Thanks for the replies, guys. I copied my post over to SGW and got some good feedback in addition to yours.

Oneounce, I'm not seeing any rib, in fact that IS the problem I have with both the Citori and Cynergy. BD at SGW mentioned the 686 requires some target float, whereas the 391 is flatter shooting. Sounds logical. I'm sure I was overshooting them with the 686.

AB, I'm thinking I was wrong about the 686 length, I'm thinking it was actually a 30, so it was comparable to the 391 overall, like you said. Incidentally, the 686 was a white onyx (aren't they all), if that narrows it down. This range chokes everything IC, says BD who shoots there. I suppose that didn't help. I think you are right about the 391 weighing more. The feeling I got was it had more weight but less "sail area". I think you are right that they were not custom shimmed, and they did feel similar, and both very nice. Stands to reason range guns would be out of the box.

I have been doing the finger pointing/light grip thing on the fore arm. I believe I saw that in Peter Croft's book.

After I got sorted out with the 391, since I was only shooting stations 2, 3, 5, 6 as singles, trying to concentrate on the fundementals, I found myself looking at the bead and picking up the target too late, and having to pass through, missing.

Since my new-found idol Fred Missiledine advocated and always shot low gun, I tried it, moving my eyes nearer to the window and starting the swing as soon as the target exited the window. With the programed 3.5 second delay it was old school all around.

It was scary how much more attached to the target I became! I could feel it breaking before pulling the trigger, because I wasn't noticing the gun at all. No time to! I was late in getting the gun shouldered, missed the pocket a few times (ouch!) and was breaking them past the center post, but was centering them nicely and consistently.

I know the serious NSSA competitors would never low gun these days, but it was a real revelation and a lot of fun.

Any thoughts on the crunchiness of the 391 action? How does it compare with an 1100 or an SX2?

I started thinking about liking a single bbl but not liking the action jumping around on its own. Where does that thinking lead? Wingmaster! Then I started thinking about the new M37 for its rumored tightness. The 1980's WM I had was a rattler! That's way I liked the 686...tight as a drum. Both pumps weigh 7 1/2 lbs. Is that crazy thinking for 200 rounds? I'm no recoil sadist, but not in a position to handload or buy expensive light rounds these days either.

I'm still fishing about for the right gun, and at the pace I'm going, it will be awhile.:banghead:

 

[ArmedBear]

I know the serious NSSA competitors would never low gun these days

I know at least one that does. Quite well. Some people shoot better low gun.

And International Skeet requires low gun, with a line on your vest and a referee to penalize you for raising the gun past it before the target appears.

The 37 is a nice pheasant gun.

Guys used to shoot skeet with pump guns, and I'm sure someone will come on here and tell you that pumps are great for skeet, even though he hasn't used one since the second he scraped the money together for something else.

If you already have a gun, I'd say, "Run what you brung" until you figure out what you really want. But I wouldn't specifically buy a pump gun of any kind for skeet, sporting clays, etc.

If you don't like the feeling of the gas action, consider a Benelli. Pricey, higher-recoil, sometimes less than amenable to light loads, but they have less mass moving inside them.

That said, the 391 12 Gauge was recently reviewed by Gun Tests, who loved it, gave it an A rating and declared it the closest thing to a "do-everything" shotgun out there. It's about the only autoloader I see at the range, apart from hunting guns brought for pre-season practice. If the thing shoots well for you, you might want to learn to like the feeling of the gas action -- it's also the feeling of low perceived recoil.