The longer 3" 20 is like the 3&1/2" 12 gauge cartridge. They both allow the use of LARGE shot. Anything smaller than #2 is probably a waste or lead or steel/non-toxic.

I have always enjoyed the light, fast 20's. For upland game, dove and quail I've never been able to notice a diff between shooting a 12 or a 20, except that it is so much easire to haul that 20 around.

I would love to see the 16 come back in style. It shoots a 3" magnum 20 weight of shot with better patterns and many 16's are pretty light. Some call a 16 load a "square load" -as wide as it is tall in the shell. They shoot even patterns.

I think usage of the 20 3" magnum is waining.

I bought a friend's Ithaca 385 3" 20 after he passed. Nice little gun. My friend had put one of those rubber slip on butt pads onto the gun. He shot a lot of 3" shells and the little gun beat him up. If I want to shoot a lot of shot, I shoot a 12. If I want to carry a light, easy to swing gun, I shoot a 20 with the short shell.

I hunted Pheasants for years with a 20ga. over/under. Used 3" shells almost exclusively.
Copper plated #5s were deadly medicine for the Pheasants. I've heard for years that the 3" 20ga. wasn't worth crap.
Don't buy it. Its another one of those old, often repeated myths that were started by some outdoor writers with time on his hands, but little experience with the concept. You know, the same guys who said that if you shoot damascus barrels you'll kill yourself.

What, therefore; is your opinion of the 20 gauge 3" mag? Do you believe that those who dislike them are full of beans? I have to admit that I have seldom shot a 3" magnum shell and that was when I was a kid...a very long time ago. However, since I have a new 20 gauge (870) that will shoot a steel shell I am considering shooting the gun at geese/ducks.

Mr. Murphy. Suggest you read Bob Brister's "Shotgunning - The Art and the Science". His testing was innovative and very revealing. Not the result of "some outdoor writer with time on his hands"

John Dallas brought up a good point when he mentioned Bob Brister. His experimentation and his books were a labor of love, not a serious source of income. He was a long time outdoor writer who probably never missed a paycheck in the last fifty years of his illustrious career. He was also a noted competitive flyer shooter and was still winning NSCA honors in the last year of his life. He could identify a shotgun in poor light. Any of us would benefit from a read or reread of his books. Moss, Mallards, and Mules is usually available very reasonably on the used book market.

I have Bob Brister's book and have read it. However, you'll have to explain how more shot in the pattern at the same relative velocity, equals poorer performance on game birds. It just isn't true. The pattern may not be as "uniform" in its distribution, Which is what Brister focused on, if I remember correctly, but it still has more pellets in it. Also, remember, that I was referring to copper plated (and sometimes buffered) #5 shot. As I remember, Brister's experiments, didn't include that combination.
I should also point out, that when I was younger, (before the lead shot ban for ducks), numerous ducks also fell victim to that same load.
If we applied that same logic re: Brister, to the 12ga., then nobody would be having any success with 3" or 3.5" loads for ducks. I think Duck hunters would disagree.

I agree with Michael, short shot strings are highly overrated. I don't think Bob Brister ever implied that ducks can't be killed with long shot strings. He did make good use of a wife and a Ford station wagon to calculate how far a duck flies between the first and the last shot in a string. As shotshell technology progresses, I am reluctant to give up either my wife or my 1974 460 powered Country Squire.

I'm afraid that if I suggested the "Brister" experiment to my wife, I'd be on the receiving end of a shot string - Short or Long.