We're fortunate to live in an era where there are a LOT of good shotgun choices. Both "vintage" and modern.
I don't put too much stock in how many rounds a gun can fire for a competition shooter. First because when a shooter is being paid to use a product, what are the chances he's going to be especially forthcoming when it comes to that product's faults?
Hunting and comp shooting are completely different, IMO, as it relates to how they wear a gun. It's the exact reverse of the old maxim: It's not the mileage, it's the age.
Shooting 50,000 rounds in one year is a VERY different thing compared to shooting 50,000 rounds over 25 years. The reason is that there's more things that cause wear and tear than just how many rounds go out the barrel.
It's all well and good for a competition shooter or a high-volume dove outfitter to run 100k rounds thorough a gun, but that has limited meaning when it comes to the average hunter who puts far more "field wear" on a gun. Firing a gun produces one kind of wear. Carrying it in the dust, dirt, grit, wet, etc produces a totally different kind of wear that impacts a gun differently over time.
There are a lot of shotguns that can handle thousands or tens of thousands of rounds reliably and under hunting conditions. The 1100 has certainly proved its worth as has the Browning A5 and Remington Model 11.
The Benelli, Beretta, and related companies all have excellent designs and the big breakthrough that hasn't been mentioned is that compared to older designs they weigh significantly less. Again, not of much consequence or even a disadvantage to a comp shooter, but very important to your average hunter.
As with most things, I don't think anyone's mind is going to be changed, even if the facts were available that proved that change would benefit them. Shotgun choice is like choosing a woman. Everybody's got their own reasons and objective criteria only go so far.
Grouse