3 Shell Limit

maker4life

Senior Member
#2
As long as you don't shoot over the limit I don't see what it matters either .
 
#3
I think it's stupid. But I mostly shoot SXSs and O/Us so it doesn't affect me.

Adam
 
#4
I think it's stupid. But I mostly shoot SXSs and O/Us so it doesn't affect me.

Adam
 

BirdNut

Senior Member
#5
Good question. On thinking about it, I would imagine its there to prevent wanton waste of game, or at least wholesale slaughter.

When you get 2-3 people quail hunting, and a covey gets up, all three connecting on a quadruple or quintuple is unlikely, but if it did happen, the entire covey is wiped out. Doubles don't come all the time, but its not that uncommon either, so I would imagine good shooters could get accustomed to the 4-5 shells and bring down an occassional flurry of birds.

I do know that in Mexico, where I've duck hunted (quail and dove, just AWESOME!), we use Benelli autos provided by the lodge. On one pass, with three shooters, nine ducks fell out of the sky.
 
#6
Does anybody think there is a need for this law?I dont know why we need it myself.

Interesting history on that.

There really is no conservation issue involved. It's one of those "ethical" issues that became incorporated into law.

When the first federal waterfowl laws were enacted, semi-automatic shotguns were relatively new. Side by sides were the norm. Also, the federal laws were adopted in large part to address the issue of market hunting, for which high capacity shotguns were a mainstay.

It's well documented that the traditional SxS shooters felt that multi-shot shotguns were "unethical" and not "gentleman's guns ", and gave the multi-shot hunters an unfair advantage. The English still feel this way, and most grounds will not let you hunt with a pump or semi-automatic shotgun. In fact a special government permit is required just to possess one.

So the three shot limit was adopted as sort of a compromise. George Reiger, who used to be conservation editor for Field and Stream wrote about this, and other non-conservation related game laws frequently.
 

maker4life

Senior Member
#7
Interesting history on that.

There really is no conservation issue involved. It's one of those "ethical" issues that became incorporated into law.

When the first federal waterfowl laws were enacted, semi-automatic shotguns were relatively new. Side by sides were the norm. Also, the federal laws were adopted in large part to address the issue of market hunting, for which high capacity shotguns were a mainstay.

It's well documented that the traditional SxS shooters felt that multi-shot shotguns were "unethical" and not "gentleman's guns ", and gave the multi-shot hunters an unfair advantage. The English still feel this way, and most grounds will not let you hunt with a pump or semi-automatic shotgun. In fact a special government permit is required just to possess one.

So the three shot limit was adopted as sort of a compromise. George Reiger, who used to be conservation editor for Field and Stream wrote about this, and other non-conservation related game laws frequently.
Even here most quail plantations don't allow semi's . It's a mix of keeping the gentlemanly tradition and flat out keeping the guide safe .
 
#9
Even here most quail plantations don't allow semi's . It's a mix of keeping the gentlemanly tradition and flat out keeping the guide safe .

Browning tried to have the best of both worlds. The tradition of only two shots with the recoil reduction of a semi-auto with the "double auto"-- a semi-automatic that only fired two shells.

Was not real popular.

http://www.sarcoinc.com/bda.html
 
#10
#11
thats a crazy looking gun.

does anyone else make a auto-loader that feeds from the side like that or is that a new innovation from Beretta?
 
#12
thats a crazy looking gun.

does anyone else make a auto-loader that feeds from the side like that or is that a new innovation from Beretta?
I think its new from Beretta (I've never seen it) and I also think its hideous.

There's a high speed camera video of its function here http://www.ugb25xcel.com/index.aspx?m=53&did=96. Click on "Break Open System." It ejects out the bottom.
 
#13
Neat concept for a gun... but not really my style. I'm more of a traditionalist.

Adam
 
#14
Like most of the game laws. About half of them make perfect sense. The rest seemed to be holdovers from 50 years ago or they evolved over the years from the small community of sportsmen who happen to show up at the public rules making meetings.

No US Constitution or Bill of Rights involved whatsoever in the fish/game laws, similar to driving laws.
 

BirdNut

Senior Member
#15
My opinion on some of the thoughts:

Regardless of the source/sense/or constitutional issues and other ramifications of the game laws, if you can't kill enough quail or doves with 3 shells, having 5 probably wouldn't do you much good. Chances are as well, that if you routinely down doubles with your side by side or over and under, then you're really not thinking to yourself that you could have gotten a quintuple, but rather are quite satisfied with your shooting. Most of the really good shooters I know pride themselves in taking a limit of doves with less than a box of shells or that they were 10 for 10 on the last few quail. Its more about quality and less about quantity.

If the argument for more shells in the magazine is "I only see one flight of ducks or a few doves or 1 covey of quail" then the issue is game abundance and management issues, not how many shells you can tote. And in fact, if game abundance is the issue one can argue then that maybe we all ought to be using single shot hammer guns, or maybe just raise the gun, pick one out and say BANG rather than actually shooting. If its lack of game that drives the idea to increase shells, for that reason we ought to go exactly in the opposite direction.

And my thoughts on the apparent arbitrary nature of game laws are the following: Yes some are for safety, some are for protection of the resource, and some are just plain the way they are. Its a part of the landscape of hunting. 3 shells is 3 shells, just like a football field is 100 yards long. Yeah, there have been times I would have gotten one or two more birds if I had more shells at the ready, but then again there would have been more touchdowns scored if the field was only 90 yards long.

Why is a football field more 100 yards and not 80 or 120? Why is a basketball goal 10 feet? It sure would be easier for me to compete in the slam dunk contest if it were only eight.
 
#16
I think its new from Beretta (I've never seen it) and I also think its hideous.

There's a high speed camera video of its function here http://www.ugb25xcel.com/index.aspx?m=53&did=96. Click on "Break Open System." It ejects out the bottom.

Interesting story on that gun. I've held one. It's a target gun intended to give the feel of an o/u in a soft shooting semi-auto. Even though it's on their website, and Beretta keeps bringing it to gun shows, last time I checked, no one had seen one "on the line." Beretta is pretty close mouthed about when it's going to hit the shelves. My guess is that the market just isn't there for Beretta to tool up a production line.


The idea has been done before in the Cosmi semi-auto. The most expensive semi-auto in the world, it's handmade.

http://www.cosmi.net/uk/ukdescri-tecn.htm
 
#17
I shoot an 11-87 on the dove field. If not for the 3-shell law, I'd just waste more shells. I seldom hit a bird on the 3rd shot, although it does happen occasionally, so it stands to reason that my accuracy wouldn't improve on the 4th or 5th shots. I seldom kill a double. I can only remember twice when I've done it and picked up both birds. I honestly don't think I would kill more birds with more shells in the gun. I killed a triple once, but I only picked up two of the birds. It wasn't a true triple though, because the first shot was on the ground, then I rolled 2 more when the flock flew up.
 

homey

Senior Member
#18
Just simply another case of Govt. Control.I have shot the Beretta ugb25.Is soft shooting but no real purpose other than trap field where the guy to your right doesn't get hit with spent shell.Mostly built because Mr. Ugo Beretta designed it and he runs the co.
 
#19
The idea behind is the same for virtually every game regulation: fair chase.

That is a notion that seems to be fading with a lot of "hunters."

I rarely shoot an auto (typically only for waterfowl), and usually shoot a two-holer. I rarely get checked, but have offered it to the game warden to check the plug. He just gave me that look.
 

28gage

Senior Member
#20
I have no problem with the three shell rule, but I carry a 28ga semi auto for quail because of it's weight. It's a Franchi Fenice and weighs less than 5 1/4 lbs. Rarely fire more than 2 shots on a covey but have been glad I had the extra shots when singles are getting up all around.

Shot an O/U for years but as I got some age on me the lighter 28ga. was the ticket. Only thing I don't like about it is not being able to break it open and show the other hunters it's not hot. But you have to adjust.....
 
Last edited:
Top