How durable and reliable is the 1897 Trench Broom?

[LittleLebowski]

I have an idea...more to come. Mine is a Norinco repro.

[fatdog]

Worst of its kind if run hard, although the last generation Norinco's were a bit sturdier. The old joke in my SASS days was that if you shot a '97 you needed three. One to start the match, one to finish the match when it broke, and one that was away being repaired already.

[LittleLebowski]

My idea was taking it to a TCinVA class or just handing it to him for him to shoot it until it breaks.

[TCinVA]

I think you are dealing with two separate concepts. Durability and reliability are different things and there's a lot of variability there based on how you choose to define each. And I would argue that however you choose to define those terms, our approach has to be very different than what we are used to when we come to the discussion of shotguns from the perspective of people who are used to Glocks and AR15 pattern rifles.

My best guess would be this:

- If you wish to define "durable" and "reliable" as a weapon you can load today, neglect, and still have it function through enough shells to solve a problem 10 years from now, the 1897 clone will probably do that. So would an 870.

- If you wish to define "durable" and "reliable" as a weapon which will function without major breakages for thousands and thousands of shells run through it with the kind of vigor and recoil control techniques we apply to a defensive shotgun, my guess is you'd break it in short order.

If you want a gun you can neglect and that will still work after prolonged periods without cleaning or lubrication, a good quality pump gun will do that for you.

If you want a gun that will chew through tens of thousands of shells without experiencing show-stopping breakages, you are probably best served by a quality semi-automatic shotgun like the Beretta 1301 or the Benelli M4. The good quality sporting semi-automatics on the market are still sporting guns at heart, but they are sporting guns that have been built around the kind of round counts, challenging conditions, and neglect that serious bird hunters put them through.

Would your 1897 get through a class with me? Probably.

Would it survive me using it as a primary pump gun for a year? Probably not. I am likely to break something that will shut the gun down in that period of time.

[TCinVA]

Worst of its kind if run hard, although the last generation Norinco's were a bit sturdier. The old joke in my SASS days was that if you shot a '97 you needed three. One to start the match, one to finish the match when it broke, and one that was away being repaired already.

One might ask how double barrels became the default gun of serious clay shooters.

I'd suggest that one of the primary reasons is because they break less.

[Trooper224]

Worst of its kind if run hard, although the last generation Norinco's were a bit sturdier. The old joke in my SASS days was that if you shot a '97 you needed three. One to start the match, one to finish the match when it broke, and one that was away being repaired already.

So true it should be carved in stone.

[Trooper224]

Would your 1897 get through a class with me? Probably.

Don't bet the rent on that.

[jlw]

Had one come to one of my classes...

...it broke.

[LittleLebowski]

I think you are dealing with two separate concepts. Durability and reliability are different things and there's a lot of variability there based on how you choose to define each. And I would argue that however you choose to define those terms, our approach has to be very different than what we are used to when we come to the discussion of shotguns from the perspective of people who are used to Glocks and AR15 pattern rifles.

My best guess would be this:

- If you wish to define "durable" and "reliable" as a weapon you can load today, neglect, and still have it function through enough shells to solve a problem 10 years from now, the 1897 clone will probably do that. So would an 870.

- If you wish to define "durable" and "reliable" as a weapon which will function without major breakages for thousands and thousands of shells run through it with the kind of vigor and recoil control techniques we apply to a defensive shotgun, my guess is you'd break it in short order.

If you want a gun you can neglect and that will still work after prolonged periods without cleaning or lubrication, a good quality pump gun will do that for you.

If you want a gun that will chew through tens of thousands of shells without experiencing show-stopping breakages, you are probably best served by a quality semi-automatic shotgun like the Beretta 1301 or the Benelli M4. The good quality sporting semi-automatics on the market are still sporting guns at heart, but they are sporting guns that have been built around the kind of round counts, challenging conditions, and neglect that serious bird hunters put them through.

Would your 1897 get through a class with me? Probably.

Would it survive me using it as a primary pump gun for a year? Probably not. I am likely to break something that will shut the gun down in that period of time.

Good stuff. I should have said something like “how durable and also, how reliable is it?” I do know the difference between the two, ToddG drilled it into my head :D

It’s yours if you want to play with it. With bayonet if you like.

[03RN]

At least you'll have a spear at the end of the day

[ranger]

One might ask how double barrels became the default gun of serious clay shooters.

I'd suggest that one of the primary reasons is because they break less.

As a former high volume clay shooter - the reason we use OUs is:
1) We hate cleaning shotguns therefore avoid autos
2) In Sporting Clays, it can be advantage to have two different chokes vs compromising two different target presentations
3) OUs are inherently more expensive therefore we can show off more
4) The weight and length of OUs (we were shooting 32 inch barrels in my day) assisted with swinging the shotgun (not stopping when trigger pulled)
5) OUs break less than autos (the normal "most reliable" autos of that time were Beretta 390s and 391s with the Rem 1100s and Browning Golds (my favorite!) were "bring a spare"

[alohadoug]

As a former high volume clay shooter - the reason we use OUs is:
1) We hate cleaning shotguns therefore avoid autos
2) In Sporting Clays, it can be advantage to have two different chokes vs compromising two different target presentations
3) OUs are inherently more expensive therefore we can show off more
4) The weight and length of OUs (we were shooting 32 inch barrels in my day) assisted with swinging the shotgun (not stopping when trigger pulled)
5) OUs break less than autos (the normal "most reliable" autos of that time were Beretta 390s and 391s with the Rem 1100s and Browning Golds (my favorite!) were "bring a spare"
With a son that's been shooting sporting clays for the last two seasons, I can confirm nothing has changed.

[jlw]

As a former high volume clay shooter - the reason we use OUs is:
1) We hate cleaning shotguns therefore avoid autos
2) In Sporting Clays, it can be advantage to have two different chokes vs compromising two different target presentations
3) OUs are inherently more expensive therefore we can show off more
4) The weight and length of OUs (we were shooting 32 inch barrels in my day) assisted with swinging the shotgun (not stopping when trigger pulled)
5) OUs break less than autos (the normal "most reliable" autos of that time were Beretta 390s and 391s with the Rem 1100s and Browning Golds (my favorite!) were "bring a spare"


You left out not having to pick up hulls.

[LOKNLOD]

You left out not having to pick up hulls.

And the fact that in a world where loading more than 2 shells into the gun at a time is a no-no, having a gun that holds more than two shells provides no benefit.