My buddies and I have this argument regularly (they love 12's). My stance on it is I don't have anything against the 12, but I've had the same killing experience with the 20 for going on 15 years now. Have killed deer (DRT, never flinched) at 155, 170, and 187 yards. Just guessing, I'd say 97/100 deer, regardless of distance and variables, were complete pass thrus. Shot a good buck at "about" 100 yards quartering strongly away from me, entered the back hip and the slug was bulging under the skin on the opposing front shoulder. That deer was total slush on the inside. That was with the old Winchester Partition Gold 3" 20ga (2000FPS), I have the slug in my gun case, it's a PERFECT flower with 100% retention.

I've never had a problem in my life with a slug (12 or 20) until I started shooting AccuTips last year. EVERY deer I've shot with them barely acted hit and ran long distances. Yes, they bled like a chainsaw massacre, but still. The ONLY response anybody can ever come up with is "shoot a 12ga instead". My point is it isn't a 20 vs 12 argument, it's a lousy round (at least in the 20ga version).

I noticed something at the range last week... I shot some Federals, Winchesters, and Hornadys. All of them were a crisp, HARD, and loud BANG!!!!! Dust flies behind the target at the instant of trigger pull. The AccuTips are a "soft", mushy shot, not as loud and less recoil. There is a delayed "pop" on the target after the sound of the shot. I think Remington is LYING about the speed of those slugs!!!!! A slow slug is an accurate slug, and the one thing they are is accurate. I just think they are slow with little kinetic energy. I think the words I'm looking for is hydrostatic shock.