It is currently Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:35 pm 
Field Grade

Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:19 pm
Posts: 82
I love my Remingtons (pre-1975 1100 & 870 Wingmasters) as well and while off-topic comments on this thread appear to be at a minumim, critical analysis of the V3 isn't taboo otherwise, why your scathing comments on the SBEIII, up on the "I love My Benelli" forum?




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:08 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:34 am
Posts: 134
RandyWakeman wrote:
The primary gas bleeds are the eight holes in the chamber, obviously, where either 8 or 4 are used. The V3 walnut has been shipping in quantity for over 1-1/2 years. There are no problems with any 2-3/4 inch or 3 inch loads that anyone has so much as hinted about in all this time.

It is called looking for a non-existent problem for no reason and no potential benefit to anyone. It is a better system for the reasons already stated: As it happens, the exhaust tubes work better . . . they are more linear, more consistent, they keep the magazine tube cleaner, and move most of the exhaust down stream well away from the shooter, all the way to the barrel ring. They are also easier to remove and replace, and easier to tune by varying the inside diameters and lengths of the tubes. There is no spring fatigue, spring wear, or spring breakage so much as possible, for there are no springs.

Standardization makes good sense, and it is also obvious that you would use the better, cleaner, more versatile system to standardize on.


Repeating the same unsubstantiated claims do not make them so.

Whether you understand how Remington's version of the short stroke piston system works or not...understand that Remington used the uncompensated system 1st (Versa Max), then progressed to the compensated system (V3). Why? Because they wanted to move to a system that was less versatile, added unnecessary parts and didn't work as well? Of course not...that defies logic and common sense. Remington developed the compensated Versaport system because it addressed a weakness and was simply a better iteration of the system. Remington only reverted back(ward) to an uncompensated system when doing so was the only way they could put walnut stocked V3s on the shelf.

RandyWakeman wrote:
This is the "I Love My Remington Shotgun" forum, although you sure wouldn't know it by the off-topic, random comments.


How about some love for Remington's compensations plugs?

Hey, I love my (3) V3s...and have stated as much here. It is you who's advocating the removal of the one of the best features of the shotgun IMO and my reason for buying them in the 1st place. Sorry, but I love the platform too much to let that go unchallenged.

_________________
hkg3k
Browning, Maxim, Vickers
Beltfeds: Real Machine Guns


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:47 pm 
Tournament Grade

Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:04 am
Posts: 215
I surely don`t pretend to know all the gas systems for all the gas guns out there, but reading all this about excessive bolt speeds and damage to receivers by 2 3/4 " magnums makes a question come to mind. Considering all that extra gas pressure, what guns ARE equipped with gas systems that can handle those shells??


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:11 pm 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 22423
Location: Plainfield, IL
hkg3k wrote:
Remington developed the compensated Versaport system because it addressed a weakness and was simply a better iteration of the system. Remington only reverted back(ward) to an uncompensated system when doing so was the only way they could put walnut stocked V3s on the shelf.


That may be your anonymous, baseless, wrongful speculation, but that is not true at all, according to Remington engineers, product specialists, etc., etc. based on the last four years of working with the gun, and meetings with many Remington officials in person in Ilion and Huntsville.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Last edited by RandyWakeman on Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 6:47 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:34 am
Posts: 134
RandyWakeman wrote:
That may be your anonymous, baseless, wrongful speculation, but that is not true at all, according to Remington engineers, product specialists, etc., etc. based on the last four years of working with the gun, and meetings with many Remington officials in person in Ilion and Huntsville.


Baseless? Wrongful Speculation? Read you own words please...

RandyWakeman wrote:
I have several V3's, but only one walnut. As the synthetic was released long before the walnut, of course I have been shooting V3 synthetic models longer, including a pre-production V3 since 2014.


RandyWakeman wrote:
The walnut model was supposed to follow on the heels of the synthetic, but extended testing by Remington revealed that it took a whole new gas exhaust system to prevent forearm cracking of the walnut, and that's what it got.

_________________
hkg3k
Browning, Maxim, Vickers
Beltfeds: Real Machine Guns


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:30 pm 
Field Grade

Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:19 pm
Posts: 82
Don't forget "anonymous" as that's the first salvo down the ad hominem path.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 7:40 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:34 am
Posts: 134
mea culpa wrote:
Don't forget "anonymous" as that's the first salvo down the ad hominem path.


Yes...I did take note of that. I just felt like the best thing I could do would be to ignore it.

_________________
hkg3k
Browning, Maxim, Vickers
Beltfeds: Real Machine Guns


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:26 am 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 22423
Location: Plainfield, IL
Tidefanatic wrote:
I surely don`t pretend to know all the gas systems for all the gas guns out there, but reading all this about excessive bolt speeds and damage to receivers by 2 3/4 " magnums makes a question come to mind. Considering all that extra gas pressure, what guns ARE equipped with gas systems that can handle those shells??


Apparently, no one wants to answer you. :shock:

All "what" extra gas pressure? Although there is a perpetual fascination with pressure, the so-called "magnum" loads have no more peak pressure than target loads, and often have less.

The "Baby Magnum" load is one of the worst-selling and worst patterning loads there is. It was a blip on the radar when 2-3/4 inch hunting guns were the norm, but that blip has long passed. Excessively heavy payloads can be tough on shotguns, but that isn't always connected to gas operation. I'll give you two examples.

In my Dad's Belgian standardweight A-5, one shot was all it took to crack the mainspring tube. Another example is a gas gun, again . . . my late father's Browning Gold 20. It didn't take many shots of Federal Heavyweight loads to blow the buffer into several pieces.

In 3 inch chambered gas guns, from A303's to B-80s to Remington 1100s, there are zero problems. A 1-1/2 oz. "Baby Magnum" is hardly a high performance load compared to common 1-7/8 oz. 3 inch lead loads. For pheasants, it makes zero sense to use fast loads, and the Golden Pheasant GPX load is one of the worst choices imaginable: the payload isn't impressive, the patterns suck, and 1-3/8 oz. @ 1485 fps is excessive recoil. It is just a dumb load to use, compared to many: in particular, the Winchester Rooster XR 1-1/4 1300 fps load that trounces the patterns of any 1-3/8 oz. lead load, with significantly less recoil.

You can tear up guns if you really want to bad enough. Take a 3 inch 303, drill out the barrel ports in an attempt to shoot 20 gauge level loads, and then pop in some heavy loads instead. You are well on your way to broken link City, and an old, weak mainspring will help anyone in their pursuit of broken parts.

Remington HyperSonic steel 1700 fps 3 inch loads are tough on several guns, and tough on shooters as well. Blow those through any number of inertia guns and even if your gun isn't begging for mercy, you soon will be. Out of the V3, it is a comfortable and manageable shell.


_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:24 am 
Tournament Grade

Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:04 am
Posts: 215
RandyWakeman wrote:
Tidefanatic wrote:
I surely don`t pretend to know all the gas systems for all the gas guns out there, but reading all this about excessive bolt speeds and damage to receivers by 2 3/4 " magnums makes a question come to mind. Considering all that extra gas pressure, what guns ARE equipped with gas systems that can handle those shells??


Apparently, no one wants to answer you. :shock:

All "what" extra gas pressure? Although there is a perpetual fascination with pressure, the so-called "magnum" loads have no more peak pressure than target loads, and often have less.

The "Baby Magnum" load is one of the worst-selling and worst patterning loads there is. It was a blip on the radar when 2-3/4 inch hunting guns were the norm, but that blip has long passed. Excessively heavy payloads can be tough on shotguns, but that isn't always connected to gas operation. I'll give you two examples.

In my Dad's Belgian standardweight A-5, one shot was all it took to crack the mainspring tube. Another example is a gas gun, again . . . my late father's Browning Gold 20. It didn't take many shots of Federal Heavyweight loads to blow the buffer into several pieces.

In 3 inch chambered gas guns, from A303's to B-80s to Remington 1100s, there are zero problems. A 1-1/2 oz. "Baby Magnum" is hardly a high performance load compared to common 1-7/8 oz. 3 inch lead loads. For pheasants, it makes zero sense to use fast loads, and the Golden Pheasant GPX load is one of the worst choices imaginable: the payload isn't impressive, the patterns suck, and 1-3/8 oz. @ 1485 fps is excessive recoil. It is just a dumb load to use, compared to many: in particular, the Winchester Rooster XR 1-1/4 1300 fps load that trounces the patterns of any 1-3/8 oz. lead load, with significantly less recoil.

You can tear up guns if you really want to bad enough. Take a 3 inch 303, drill out the barrel ports in an attempt to shoot 20 gauge level loads, and then pop in some heavy loads instead. You are well on your way to broken link City, and an old, weak mainspring will help anyone in their pursuit of broken parts.

Remington HyperSonic steel 1700 fps 3 inch loads are tough on several guns, and tough on shooters as well. Blow those through any number of inertia guns and even if your gun isn't begging for mercy, you soon will be. Out of the V3, it is a comfortable and manageable shell.




Thanks Randy, it was really just curiosity on my part, what with all the rather strident technical rhetoric bouncing back and forth. Not an issue for me in that my shooting is done in dove fields, skeet ranges and Turkey woods. All either regular upland 2 3/4" or 3 ". No "baby magnums " either needed or required!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:32 am 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 22423
Location: Plainfield, IL
Believe it or not, the classic 1-1/4 oz. 1330 fps load was not arrived at by randomness. Assuming reasonably hard, spherical shot . . . it is just ideal for wild pheasants out of just about everything. It was the same, back in the day, on mallards.

The velocity "trick" is used again and again in the struggle to sell shotshells. The goofy idea is that the harder a shotgun whacks you, the harder it is going to whack a bird. You get far more return with increased pellet diameter than just blowing stuff out of your muzzle faster.

Image
1330 fps is the limit area where you don't get excessive shot deformation with high-antimony lead. It is true with the FITASC 1 oz. 1300 fps loads and even the Olympic ("international") shells that are at 1325 fps.

Fiocchi Golden Pheasant loads are "okay" . . . but the shot is relatively soft. The 12GP5 load, 1-3/8 at 1250 fps, patterns far, far better than the nutty 12GPX load, which is the same payload at 1485 fps.

Federal has a truly lousy load in "Prairie Storm," complete with 30% intentionally out of round pellets. The Federal PF154FS is 1-1/4 oz. at 1500 fps and they truly suck.

Conversely, the newer Federal Hi-Bird shells, 1-1/4 oz. @ 1330 fps, are excellent. They are about as good as can be had without going to a buffered shell.

Image

If you can use lead on turkey, the Winchester Longbeard XR shells are the best lead loads ever made. The 2-3/4 inch load is 1-1/4 oz. at 1300 fps, and there are two 3 inch loads: 1 3/4 oz. @ 1200 fps (shown above, in #5 shot) and 1-7/8 oz. at 1050 fps.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:03 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:34 am
Posts: 134
RandyWakeman wrote:
All "what" extra gas pressure? Although there is a perpetual fascination with pressure, the so-called "magnum" loads have no more peak pressure than target loads, and often have less.


Not sure if intentionally misleading here or doing so out of ignorance.

SAAMI allows a MAX PEAK operating pressure for 2.75" shotgun shells of 11,500 psi. Randy's statement above implies a 7/8 oz load @1100 fps (<2 3/4 dram eq) will normally have a higher peak pressure than 1 3/8 oz load @1485fps (4 1/4 dram eq - MAX). Not only is this counter intuitive...it's very misleading.

Now...can a puny target load have a 11,500 psi peak pressure? Sure, but if a puny target load achieves max pressure...then the component selection (powder, wad, etc.) for that load is seriously inefficient. Target load operating pressures are much less...something re-loaders know and easily verified by looking at a reloading data chart.

Extra pressure? Yes...the 2.75" magnums consistently operate at a higher peak pressure, but just as important they have a much larger area under the Time/Pressure curve. It's the larger area under the curve which is mostly responsible for the energy imparted into the system.

RandyWakeman wrote:
The "Baby Magnum" load is one of the worst-selling and worst patterning loads there is. It was a blip on the radar when 2-3/4 inch hunting guns were the norm, but that blip has long passed.


Whether you believe they're a decent load or not -or- whether you believe their time has come and gone...they're still very popular in the pheasant fields of South Dakota where I hunt and the Cabela's in Mitchell will have cases and cases of selection of them for purchase during pheasant season. Regardless, your assessment of them as an effective hunting load is not relevant to this discussion...I will say, they've been quite effective on the wild birds we hunt.

RandyWakeman wrote:
Excessively heavy payloads can be tough on shotguns, but that isn't always connected to gas operation.


Especially if it's not a gas-operated :lol:

Payload alone is not the full picture either...it's payload at velocity. In other words...kinetic energy [E=1/2(M*V^2)]

A heavy payload at high velocity will have a much higher KE than a heavy payload a lower velocity. All other things being equal...increasing mass is linear to the relationship, increasing velocity is exponential to the relationship.

RandyWakeman wrote:
A 1-1/2 oz. "Baby Magnum" is hardly a high performance load compared to common 1-7/8 oz. 3 inch lead loads.


WRONG. The Dram Eq for the 2.75" magnums is the same or higher than the 3" shells.

RandyWakeman wrote:
In 3 inch chambered gas guns, from A303's to B-80s to Remington 1100s, there are zero problems.


The 3" guns you mention I'm sure would have no problem with the 2.75" magnums as they're tuned for high performance shells...at the same time, none of them are known to function well (or at all) with target loads. That's the difference between the 3" shotguns you mention and the V3 or Versa Max. Having all chamber ports open with no additional compensation is akin "drilling out the ports" on the 3" guns you mention so they will function with target loads.

RandyWakeman wrote:
Remington HyperSonic steel 1700 fps 3 inch loads are tough on several guns, and tough on shooters as well. Blow those through any number of inertia guns and even if your gun isn't begging for mercy, you soon will be. Out of the V3, it is a comfortable and manageable shell.


Not an "apples to apples" comparison as the V3 has half of its chamber ports closed with the 3" Remington Hypersonics.

The whole discussion is about having all chamber ports opened to magnum pressures and energy without compensation...which is what you get with the 2.75" magnums in the V3 Walnut and Versa Max for that matter.

Tidefanatic wrote:
Thanks Randy, it was really just curiosity on my part, what with all the rather strident technical rhetoric bouncing back and forth. Not an issue for me in that my shooting is done in dove fields, skeet ranges and Turkey woods. All either regular upland 2 3/4" or 3 ". No "baby magnums " either needed or required!


You may never need or want to shoot the 2.75" magnums. But that was never the point. Randy advocated all V3s should go with the Walnut type gas system...and my point is that it's less capable (less versatile) of handling the 2.75" magnum shells for those who do want to use them.

_________________
hkg3k
Browning, Maxim, Vickers
Beltfeds: Real Machine Guns


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:49 pm 
Tournament Grade

Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:04 am
Posts: 215
hkg3k wrote:
RandyWakeman wrote:
All "what" extra gas pressure? Although there is a perpetual fascination with pressure, the so-called "magnum" loads have no more peak pressure than target loads, and often have less.


Not sure if intentionally misleading here or doing so out of ignorance.

SAAMI allows a MAX PEAK operating pressure for 2.75" shotgun shells of 11,500 psi. Randy's statement above implies a 7/8 oz load @1100 fps (<2 3/4 dram eq) will normally have a higher peak pressure than 1 3/8 oz load @1485fps (4 1/4 dram eq - MAX). Not only is this counter intuitive...it's very misleading.

Now...can a puny target load have a 11,500 psi peak pressure? Sure, but if a puny target load achieves max pressure...then the component selection (powder, wad, etc.) for that load is seriously inefficient. Target load operating pressures are much less...something re-loaders know and easily verified by looking at a reloading data chart.

Extra pressure? Yes...the 2.75" magnums consistently operate at a higher peak pressure, but just as important they have a much larger area under the Time/Pressure curve. It's the larger area under the curve which is mostly responsible for the energy imparted into the system.

RandyWakeman wrote:
The "Baby Magnum" load is one of the worst-selling and worst patterning loads there is. It was a blip on the radar when 2-3/4 inch hunting guns were the norm, but that blip has long passed.


Whether you believe they're a decent load or not -or- whether you believe their time has come and gone...they're still very popular in the pheasant fields of South Dakota where I hunt and the Cabela's in Mitchell will have cases and cases of selection of them for purchase during pheasant season. Regardless, your assessment of them as an effective hunting load is not relevant to this discussion...I will say, they've been quite effective on the wild birds we hunt.

RandyWakeman wrote:
Excessively heavy payloads can be tough on shotguns, but that isn't always connected to gas operation.


Especially if it's not a gas-operated :lol:

Payload alone is not the full picture either...it's payload at velocity. In other words...kinetic energy [E=1/2(M*V^2)]

A heavy payload at high velocity will have a much higher KE than a heavy payload a lower velocity. All other things being equal...increasing mass is linear to the relationship, increasing velocity is exponential to the relationship.

RandyWakeman wrote:
A 1-1/2 oz. "Baby Magnum" is hardly a high performance load compared to common 1-7/8 oz. 3 inch lead loads.


WRONG. The Dram Eq for the 2.75" magnums is the same or higher than the 3" shells.

RandyWakeman wrote:
In 3 inch chambered gas guns, from A303's to B-80s to Remington 1100s, there are zero problems.


The 3" guns you mention I'm sure would have no problem with the 2.75" magnums as they're tuned for high performance shells...at the same time, none of them are known to function well (or at all) with target loads. That's the difference between the 3" shotguns you mention and the V3 or Versa Max. Having all chamber ports open with no additional compensation is akin "drilling out the ports" on the 3" guns you mention so they will function with target loads.

RandyWakeman wrote:
Remington HyperSonic steel 1700 fps 3 inch loads are tough on several guns, and tough on shooters as well. Blow those through any number of inertia guns and even if your gun isn't begging for mercy, you soon will be. Out of the V3, it is a comfortable and manageable shell.


Not an "apples to apples" comparison as the V3 has half of its chamber ports closed with the 3" Remington Hypersonics.

The whole discussion is about having all chamber ports opened to magnum pressures and energy without compensation...which is what you get with the 2.75" magnums in the V3 Walnut and Versa Max for that matter.

Tidefanatic wrote:
Thanks Randy, it was really just curiosity on my part, what with all the rather strident technical rhetoric bouncing back and forth. Not an issue for me in that my shooting is done in dove fields, skeet ranges and Turkey woods. All either regular upland 2 3/4" or 3 ". No "baby magnums " either needed or required!


You may never need or want to shoot the 2.75" magnums. But that was never the point. Randy advocated all V3s should go with the Walnut type gas system...and my point is that it's less capable (less versatile) of handling the 2.75" magnum shells for those who do want to use them.



Fully aware, hkg3k, as to what the " point " is of what has now become a rather tedious, ongoing technical excoriation of all things Randy Wakeman, having morphed into that from a simple comparison of two shotguns. My comment was meant to be only conversational, which obviously, and apparently, has no place here. I will say this. You do appear to be a man on a mission! That`s it. I`m out of this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:20 pm 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 22423
Location: Plainfield, IL
hkg3k wrote:
Randy advocated all V3s should go with the Walnut type gas system


I still do. Now, please be quiet or I'll put you back in the suitcase.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:28 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:34 am
Posts: 134
Tidefanatic wrote:
I will say this. You do appear to be a man on a mission!


And Randy's not? Technical excoriation of statements without merit and meant to mislead.

Tidefanatic wrote:
My comment was meant to be only conversational, which obviously, and apparently, has no place here.


Not when you make a comment like "all the rather strident technical rhetoric bouncing back and forth." And apparently hold me solely responsible...

Furthermore...you directed a question at me and I answered honestly at length with something other than...those shells suck so don't use them and your gun will be fine.

Good luck...

_________________
hkg3k
Browning, Maxim, Vickers
Beltfeds: Real Machine Guns


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:31 pm 
Field Grade

Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:19 pm
Posts: 82
IMO, hkg3k answered Tidefanatic's question in a concise, technical manner and avoided offering platitudes that were lacking any evidentiary basis. It just goes to show that even "experts" can and are schooled when they get outside their technical knowledge boundaries.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 7:34 pm 
Presentation Grade

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 12:13 am
Posts: 572
Location: Cajun Country Louisiana
He in fact answered a question you directed at him. He also seems to be highly informed and correct. If you aren't looking for an answer from him, it might be better not to ask him a question. I have enjoyed this topic, it has informed me of things about the V3, I didn't know. There is no attack, just good conversation and lots of good information. Not everyone will agree all the time and we need more intelligent debates. This topic belongs in the Remington forum and some of us are better off for having it. This guy in my opinion IS the authority on the V3, and should be listened to.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:50 am 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 22423
Location: Plainfield, IL
Whenever you hear someone referencing “dram equivalents,” it is time to run for cover. There is no such thing as a dram equivalent in terms of pressure in modern shotshells. Drams, a unit of weight of blackpowder, means nothing other than a sloppy suggestion of velocity. It means nothing as far as pressure and when you read “Drams Eq. = Max” you are reading nothing of value.

That type of worthless statement varies by manufacturer and tells you nothing. 1-1/4 oz. @ 1450 can be listed as “dr. eq. = Max.” But so can 1-1/4 oz. at 1500 fps, 1600 fps, or 1-1/4 oz. @ 1700 fps. “Drams Eq. = Max” won't even tell you the velocity.

Anyone who starts gurgling about “time under the curve” when it comes to the Remington V3 is miserably ignorant of the V3 action. There is no conventional pressure curve that affects the V3 action, as gas is bled directly from the chamber itself.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:51 am 
Utility Grade

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:00 pm
Posts: 16
Boy, this escalated quickly...
I see some good points for both sides. Glad to see Randy on board with the shim and the possibility of a gas issue on the synthetic V3s that need to be addressed.

I'd say, for all shotguns, it may be just simpler to find a shell that works best in your gun than to ask the manufacturer to change the gun. There will always be compromise when talking about design of a shotgun. In this case, the V3 was designed to be a "do-everything" gun and it does an exceptional job at that when compared to competition...like my Dad's A5 I mentioned that can't cycle dove loads.
In my case, I'll never use a hi-powered 2.75 load. In fact the only time I won't be using 3" stainless waterfowl loads are before the season when I go skeet shooting to brush off the dust of my shooting skills.

I do think Remington needs to change the design to simplify the the production, but after this discussion it may be harder than we originally thought to come up with a better compromise than where they're already at.

I imagine Remington product designers having a similar discussion (albeit much more informed) than what just happened here lol.

I think everyone here loves their V3, and that passion comes out in wanting to see it even better than it already is.
I'm happy with my purchase and would not make a different decision if I could go back and do it again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:06 pm 
Shotgun Expert
Shotgun Expert
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am
Posts: 22423
Location: Plainfield, IL
fblainen11 wrote:
Glad to see Randy on board with the shim and the possibility of a gas issue on the synthetic V3s that need to be addressed.


The sole reason for my response to your review was the solution, for you, to turn the 8.5 / 10 rating you gave the V3 into a 10/10. The exhaust tubes and the shims do just that.

I've shot both V3 walnut and synthetic models side by side with the same shells, all the way through the spectrum. There is zero difference in basic functionality between the two models, regardless of load used.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fblainen11 wrote:
Thanks! Any other thoughts on anything else?


The V3 is the best 12 gauge auto Remington has ever made. As far as I'm concerned, they need to do a couple of things to make it an all-time hit for everyone. It is going to take more models, for it has been just the synthetic for years, now just synthetic and the base walnut.

Image

The above example is a pre-production prototype I've been shooting since 2014.

Originally, I was told that the V3 would have shims. That was delayed, and then the ball was dropped. The last I heard, "shims were back on." Since that time, a lot has happened. Gun sales tanked, Remington has been in and now successfully out of Chapter 11, and today, gun sales are soaring . . . three straight months of all-time record sales. It isn't being driven by Joe Duckhunter or Betty Doveblaster. It is pistols and AR-15's, and that isn't the V3.

The gas venting system on the walnut, the tube array, is superior to the synthetic. It only makes sense to standardize. That means new a forearm redesign on the synthetic models, new tooling, etc., to accommodate the exhaust tubes.

While they are at it, they might as well get the bloody shims done. I don't need them. personally, but that isn't the point. Some people either need them or just want them, and no one would object to having them available. Remington can also take what they have learned from the last three years of 12 gauge production and apply it to a V3 20 gauge out of the gate.

The V3 begs for tactical / turkey hunting models and also higher grade upland and clays models to fill out the line. I personally would appreciate a "Waterfowl Pro" version, just like they did with the Versa-Max. Others have different ideas. The walnut version has one massive hunk of walnut for the buttstock. That could be channeled out and would lighten the V3 walnut model a bit which at least I would appreciate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As mentioned prior, there are 4 clear advantages to the exhaust tubes.

The exhaust tube system has more consistent bolt speed from 7/8 oz. loads on up. It is a better system for several reasons, not just the more consistent bolt speed and ejection. The spring gas bleed plugs are non-starters on walnut models, they break walnut forearms with authority.

As the tubes exhaust substantially farther downstream, not only is the forearm stress eliminated, the magazine tube stays cleaner, there is no potential for blowback (that I have never had, but others have reported).

It only makes sense to have one gas exhaust system and not only is the exhaust tube system more consistent across the spectrum, it is cleaner, works with any forearm material, and eliminates any blowback potential. That's four distinct advantages.

_________________
--Randy

http://randywakeman.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Remington V3 review shot beside a Benelli Super Vinci
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:48 pm 
Tournament Grade
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 10:34 am
Posts: 134
RandyWakeman wrote:
Whenever you hear someone referencing “dram equivalents,” it is time to run for cover. There is no such thing as a dram equivalent in terms of pressure in modern shotshells. Drams, a unit of weight of blackpowder, means nothing other than a sloppy suggestion of velocity. It means nothing as far as pressure and when you read “Drams Eq. = Max” you are reading nothing of value.


Dram Equivalency is certainly not a perfect reference, but it's still a reference the manufacturer's use nonetheless.

You made the statement: "Baby Magnum" is hardly a high performance load compared to common 1-7/8 oz. 3 inch lead loads."

I chose to use Dram Eq to debunk your assertion because it was expedient. Most 3" shells are 4 dram eq and so are 2.75" magnums when a number is expressed by the manufacturer. Kent 2.75" Ultimate Fast Leads actually have a higher Dram Eq of 4 1/4...higher than your average 3" shell and totally debunking your performance comparison.

You don't like Dram Equivalency? Fine...we'll debunk your statement using Kinetic Energy. The following is a comparison of KE between 2.75" magnums and 3" magnums.

2.75" Shells
Fiocchi Golden Pheasant GPXs - 3993 joules
Kent Ultimate Fast Leads - 3983 jouies
Federal Prairie Storms - 3703 joules

3" Shells (Longbeard Turkey loads from your previous post)
1 3/4 oz load - 3318 joules
1 7/8 oz load - 2722 joules

That's an energy level of 12 to 47% greater than the 3" shells. As you can see...your statement(s) just don't measure up to scientific fact.

RandyWakeman wrote:
Anyone who starts gurgling about “time under the curve” when it comes to the Remington V3 is miserably ignorant of the V3 action. There is no conventional pressure curve that affects the V3 action, as gas is bled directly from the chamber itself.


It's actually Area Under the Curve and it's a representation of the total...not just a peak. All gas is bled from the barrel (pressure vessel)...it's just bled at an earlier point where the pressure is greater. Even the Versaport system has to follow the laws of physics as do the other gas tappet systems out there.

RandyWakeman wrote:
The exhaust tube system has more consistent bolt speed from 7/8 oz. loads on up.


I certainly don't have the high-speed video it would take to prove or disprove this statement. Based on other statements you've made which don't stand up to technical scrutiny...I seriously doubt the veracity of this statement.

Physics would predict the spring loaded valves would be superior for controlling bolt speed because the valves control/regulate the pressure in the Versaport cylinders and thus the energy transferred to the bolt...regardless of what shell it being fired. The tubes are simply a "straw" and extension of the vent which dumps residual gas AFTER the pistons have been "energized." They provide ZERO compensation and control ZERO inside the Versaport cylinder.



_________________
hkg3k
Browning, Maxim, Vickers
Beltfeds: Real Machine Guns


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], ChrisLunker, cookoff013, dak0ta, gdkodiak, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Majestic-12 [Bot], markcarlson, simsy9, wdavis8679


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
© 2017 Carbon Media Group Outdoors    - DMCA Notice