Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/18/2004 5:54:07 PM EST
www.rb-treasures.com/ammo/SS.html

Is this the Aguila mini-shell or is this some new brand? The buckshot looks like its 1.5 inches and it says the slugs are 1.75 in. I have a Defender, so from what I understand, it should cycle these things decently.

Thanks for any info.
Link Posted: 10/18/2004 7:18:58 PM EST
"You don't get something for nothing" holds true here.

The Mini-shells are NOT reliable in most guns, and apparently not at all in Ithaca's.

You will have to shoot enough of them to verify reliability.

Second, these are considerably LESS effective than standard shot shells.

Third, NO police or military units are using these due the lesser effectiveness, which should tell you something.

IF your gun is 100% reliable with them, the trade-off is more shells, but much less effective shells.

Again, there's no free lunch.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 3:40:25 AM EST
Now I'm curious...what makes these less effective? Are there fewer pellets in these shells than a 2.75 inch "low recoil" round (which are what I typically use)?
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 11:04:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2004 11:13:18 AM EST by faris]
Less powerful load, below even the "Less recoil" shells being sold.

Again, you get nothing for free. In order to build a much shorter shell, they had to reduce the power considerably.

A key indicator here is the fact that no American company makes these. An under-powered shell that fails to do the job, is a law suit looking for a place to happen.

I think these short shells were actually designed specifically for use in an odd ball foreign pump shotgun that has a magazine that fits into the pistol grip. As I recall, this gun had a pump action that is pushed FORWARD then back to operate it.
This gun looks vaguely like a Uzi semi-auto carbine.

A few were imported by one of the big surplus rifle importers, but apparently they were mostly a oddity due to the design and the low power shells required to feed through the grip.

Since they had tooled up to make the shells, they apparently are going to market them for other shotguns, with, (I think) a warning about feed problems.
Link Posted: 10/19/2004 1:28:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/19/2004 4:11:51 PM EST by leakycow]
Thanks for your replies...

I hate to beat a dead horse, but are we talking about nine 00 pellets leaving the muzzle at 600 fps, or are we closer to the 900/1000 fps area? If it's the latter, then that's practically ideal in terms of combining effective terminal performance with minimal recoil.

In other words, most "tactical" shot loads that are offered today could be down-powered even further with absolutely no loss in terminal performance.

Slugs, on the other hand, are a different story, as playing with the velocity will affect their expansion/penetration.

Regardless, thanks for the info again. I may do some more research and decide if I feel like blowing 15 bucks on these shells. From what I understand, if they don't work in my 1300, they won't work in any pump gun.


EDIT: duh, I forgot that the link shows the shells' velocity in their table. I emailed the company (I've never dealt with them before) as to the # of pellets in their loads, and who the manufacturer of the shells is.
Top Top