ShotGunWorld Shotguns

It is currently Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:57 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 7:07 pm 
Field Grade

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 11:29 pm
Posts: 27
Location: Alabama
Ok so I been wanting an extra barrel so I can have HD mode. My question is my gun had a 2 3/4" chamber from the factory. This extra barrel I got is 3" magnum. Is it ok to use this barrel with my gun? Did I just make a 3" HD gun or did I waste money on a barrel I can't use?




Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 8:08 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 14236
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
I answered in the General Forum. You already bought it so you may as well see what works through it. The 3" loads will not hurt anything, but it may not cycle either.

_________________
What could have happened... did.
I do not trust Remington's dating service accuracy. If they were Match.com, you could end up with Nancy Pelosi.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:23 am 
Utility Grade

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:38 pm
Posts: 4
It will be fine for steel shot, go to Remington web site to see where they sell 3" barrels for 2 3/4" 1100 guns. They do not recommend shooting lead when putting on a 3" barrel. What choke? If full fixed, no bigger than #2 steel.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:33 pm 
Utility Grade

Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2015 10:38 pm
Posts: 4
2 3/4" lead is fine. It's just not recommended to shoot 3" lead loads (buckshot) out if 2 3/4" receiver with 3" barrel mounted on it. It will eject 3" loads FYI. I shoot 3" steel shot loads out of my 1100 with the 3" barrel mounted on my 2 3/4" receiver (nonmagnum) all duck season long. When I need to shoot buckshot (lead) I shoot 2 3/4" shells only. Hope this helps. For HD, 2 3/4" buckshot shot do the trick.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:30 pm 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:35 pm
Posts: 3903
Location: Maumelle, Arkansas
If it is a full choke it may not pattern steel worth crap. I had one that shot hour glass shaped patterns.
It patterned lead loads fine but very heavy lead loads are not a good idea without installing a magnum sleeve on the gun. Too much bolt velocity.

_________________
WELL YOU GONNA PULL THOSE PISTOLS OR WHISTLE DIXIE ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Sun Jan 25, 2015 8:09 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 14236
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
You will get less retained bolt velocity with a Magnum barrel and a standard sleeve because there is less mass to retain the inertia working against the spring. I say again the only potential issues are with heavy loads in a standard barrel with a Magnum sleeve.

_________________
What could have happened... did.
I do not trust Remington's dating service accuracy. If they were Match.com, you could end up with Nancy Pelosi.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 3:52 pm 
Limited Edition

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:15 am
Posts: 340
Location: MD
Virginian knows what he's talking about as usual. I talked with a Remington tech rep some years ago about this; he referred to excessive bolt speed as the major concern. The more and larger the gas ports, the more action speed the sleeve and the bolt will have. Magnum barrels have the least and smallest ports, so no danger there. I do believe that the 1100 "Steel Shot barrel" has a larger single port than the 1100 Magnum barrel however. The 1100 Standard barrel has two ports that are each about the size of the single port in a Magnum barrel. The 11-87 barrel also has two ports but they're larger than those in the 1100 Standard barrel because the 11-87 is able to bleed off the excess.

If you have a 2-3/4" 1100 receiver and want to shoot 3" loads get an 11-87 barrel for it. It will effectively turn your 1100 into and 11-87. It will probably cycle everything... (mine does) from 1-7/8 oz Turkey loads to 1 oz. target loads. You'll need to also get the metal bushing that goes on after the barrel and before the forend; without it the forend won't tighten firmly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Tue Feb 03, 2015 4:52 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 14236
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
Sometimes an 11-87 barrel will fit fine with an 1100 fore end - usually the synthetics will interchange, but often you may have to remove some wood from the inside front to get the fore end to snug up to the receiver. With the metal gas shroud installed I haven't seen one fit yet without some work. When putting an 1100 barrel on a wood 11-87 you will likely need a spacer so the fore end can hold the barrel tightly to the receiver. And with an early 1100 barrel you will have to file out the extractor notch. For some reason the fore end issues seem greater with newer guns. Back when, I failed to check dimensions and/or take notes.
The early Steel Shot barrels had a smaller hole, but the later ones I have checked are the same as the old Magnum barrels. They may have changed again. I must have lost some enthusiasm because I no longer go to shows and such with a bunch of drill bits in my pocket.

_________________
What could have happened... did.
I do not trust Remington's dating service accuracy. If they were Match.com, you could end up with Nancy Pelosi.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:41 am 
Limited Edition

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:15 am
Posts: 340
Location: MD
I may not be remembering the 'Steel Shot' barrel port configuration correctly; I don't have one anymore to check. Redtide99 didn't specify exactly what he had but it sounds like a Mag barrel and I'm fairly sure he can't get into trouble there but (be aware) Steel Shot barrels have different ports. I do remember Remington telling me that the Steel Shot barrels were not originally intended to allow Standard guns to shoot 3" steel they were intended to make the Magnum guns work better with steel shot. They later advised that these could be used with Standard guns also. My advice is (only) to go to an 11-87 barrel, which is what I eventually decided on. That way all the bases are covered and there's no need for concern whether any particular load you may want to try is compatible with your gun. A used 11-87 barrel can be bought for about the same price as an 1100 barrel, perhaps even less.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:52 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 14236
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
First, it's not ports, it's port. The very first Steel Shot barrels said for 3" lead or steel with 3" guns, and 3" steel only on 2-3/4" receivers. Later Remington rescinded that - change of lawyers I guess, or a marketing strategy to sell more 11-87s - and now they say 3" only on 3" guns. Which is interesting, because there is absolutely zero difference between a standard receiver and a Magnum one except for the rollmarking. Even the action spring is the same. Unless they have changed, Midway still has the old ad copy on their website on the Steel Shot barrels. I still remember when Remington advised not swapping 2-3/4" barrels onto 3" receivers on 870s and 1100s, and then they started advertising the ability to do it as a plus. Nothing changed but the marketing strategy.
They still definitely say not to swap 1100 and 11-87 barrels. You are invoking their logic (as you remember it) to reinforce what you agree with and then disregarding what is in black and white where you disagree.

_________________
What could have happened... did.
I do not trust Remington's dating service accuracy. If they were Match.com, you could end up with Nancy Pelosi.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:25 am 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:35 pm
Posts: 3903
Location: Maumelle, Arkansas
Virginian wrote:
You will get less retained bolt velocity with a Magnum barrel and a standard sleeve because there is less mass to retain the inertia working against the spring. I say again the only potential issues are with heavy loads in a standard barrel with a Magnum sleeve.


However, it takes more force to overcome the weight of the heavier (more mass) magnum sleeve. It will start with less velocity, all else being equal, resulting in less initial bolt speed. If they both started with the same bolt speed (velocity) your theory regarding less retained (final) velocity (inertia) with the standard sleeve would be true.

Any problems would be most apparent with very heavy lead loads. Heavy steel loads are likely not to cause any issues.

_________________
WELL YOU GONNA PULL THOSE PISTOLS OR WHISTLE DIXIE ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Wed Feb 04, 2015 2:19 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 14236
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
Way back when I had one shotgun and little money, and little knowledge, I put my brother in law's 3" barrel on my standard 1100. I found that it would not function with anything less than 3" 1-5/8 ounce lead loads. On his gun it would run 1-1/4 ounce field loads. I knew very little about guns period back then, but about 20 years later I did get deep into the subject.
I believe that the standard sleeve loses velocity faster than the magnum sleeve, due to it's lower mass, such that it ends up going slower by or before the end of travel against the spring force even though it was going faster to begin with. For an experiment, you can take a 3" gun/action sleeve with a 3" Magnum barrel, and start reducing loads. Then do the same thing with a 2-3/4" gun/standard sleeve, and a 3" barrel and see which one quits first. It will be the one with the standard sleeve. If you start shooting heavier and heavier loads thru a standard 2-3/4" barrel with both sleeves, the Magnum sleeve will start hitting the buffer, whereas the standard one never will.
I was never able to get either sleeve to hit the buffer with any published max load with the Magnum barrel. I shot 1-7/8 ounce plated lead loads through the Magnum barrel with the standard sleeve and weighed every charge of Blue Dot to make sure I got the max., and I was using the loads published on an early can of the stuff. I have never seen loads that heavy anywhere else ever since.
Keep in mind the very short duration when the gasses are acting on the sleeve, versus the relatively long travel against the spring.

_________________
What could have happened... did.
I do not trust Remington's dating service accuracy. If they were Match.com, you could end up with Nancy Pelosi.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:55 am 
Crown Grade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 4:35 pm
Posts: 3903
Location: Maumelle, Arkansas
Just last year I bought a 1972 standard sleeve 1100 with a 3" magnum single port plain barrel on it. While testing the gun it would fire and fully funtion with some 25 year old 1 1/4 oz Rem "duck and pheasant" loads in the 1200 fps range as well as 1 1/8 oz steel loads in 2 3/4" at about 1350 fps.

Some twenty five plus years ago when I owned a 3" Waterfowl model 1100 with the magnum sleeve, it would not reliably funtion with anything less than 1 5/8 oz 3" magnum lead loads. It would NOT funtion with the 2 3/4" baby magnum 1 1/2 oz load at all. I got rid of that gun as soon as the 11-87 came out.

I am basing my opinion on personal experience with those two guns.

_________________
WELL YOU GONNA PULL THOSE PISTOLS OR WHISTLE DIXIE ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:20 am 
Limited Edition

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:15 am
Posts: 340
Location: MD
I admit that I still puzzle about it some - reducing the port size should increase the pressure of a gas moving through the port if the pressure and volume on the reservoir side remain constant. This would also reduce the volume that could move through the port in a given amount of time, having the effect of slowing the start of the sleeve. I've even considered that the heavier sleeve on the 3" 1100 was perhaps intended for a purpose other than cycling function, such as an attempt at recoil reduction. As correctly mentioned, the back spring for both receivers is the same so that same spring would slow the heavier sleeve less than the lighter one. I agree too that it would take more force (generated by a combination of gas pressure and volume) to start the heavier sleeve. Some of these features seem at odds with each other whether for recoil or function. I think the 3" 1100 formula got screwed-up by the newer powders developed somewhat after steel shot was introduced, hence "Steel Shot" barrels and the 11-87.

Remington currently says about its Steel Shot barrels: "‡ NOTE: Model 1100 Steel Shot Barrels are designed for use with 2¾" or 3" in Magnum receivers; ONLY 2¾" steel or 2¾" lead in non-magnum receivers". Virginian is also correct that Remington WARNS that 1100 and 11-87 barrels are NOT to be interchanged. (Also Virginian, I use/d the word ports when referring to barrels and port when referring to barrel.) What I remember about the 1100 Magnum (receiver and barrel) I had in the 80s was that it cycled everything but target loads. My brother's Beretta 303 Magnum barrel did the same thing. I don't remember that Remington had a Steel Shot barrel available at that time; if it was I didn't know about it. Anyway, all the design stuff aside, I diligently measured and checked parts lists between the two and there's no controversy that the 11-87 and 1100 Standard receivers are the same (excepting the extractor). I did this before even I tried it, let alone suggest it to someone else. Nevertheless, I advise anyone reading these posts to follow the advice of Remington's attorneys, because I would like to continue buying their firearms.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:03 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 14236
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
Over the years I have sold, worked on, and experimented with hundreds of 1100s and quite a few 11-87s. I took pride that I never saw one I could not get running reliably with whatever loads the owner wanted to shoot, as long as they were within reason by my definition. I believe at one time or another I have had mine set up in every possible configuration. I was also fortunate enough to be the beneficiary of about a 4 hour conversation with Wayne Leek. That was priceless. I did it because I was interested for my own benefit and knowledge; the same reason I shot all those patterns with overbored barrels and custom bored choke tubes.
You would not believe how many people bought 1100 Magnums and then got highly upset because it would not function with Dove and Quail loads in spite of the fact Remington made no secret of the limitations. Or the folks who damaged a gun because someone told them to "just drill out the gas ports".
The Steel Shot barrels I have checked - after a very early run - are exactly the same as the old 3" Magnum barrels with the addition of choke tubes (and weight). The Magnum and Steel Shot barrels have one (1) port; the 2-3/4" barrels have two (2). At what point with what powder and load the gas flow velocity drops below supersonic with what set up and the whole dynamic changes, I do not know, but I have checked the empirical results. The systems were set up to be optimally balanced with the intended loads, function reliably, and not hammer the receivers. Remington started out saying 3" steel was fine on 2-3/4" receivers. So which Remington lawyers do you believe; the old ones, or the new ones, or the next ones? I bet they all lose sleep over all those Sporting and Target Contour barrels going out the door, even with the load admonition clearly stamped on the barrel though. The only lawyer I listen to religiously is mine. I may not always heed his advice, but I am assuredly well informed.
If someone comes on here and asks for advice, I try to give it to the best of my ability in good faith. If I am stating an opinion I try to remember to state that is what it is. Everyone is of course free to do only whatever they feel comfortable with with their gun. If anyone thinks I am just full of it they should behave accordingly. I still say I do not believe you will hurt a gun with the standard action sleeve with a Magnum barrel, but the reverse is not the case.
One more thing, all ports are not created equal. While the minimum diameter may be the same, the entry and/or exit angles may be different. I am of the opinion this is why some 1100 Magnums will run 1-1/8 ounce loads and some will not run anything less than a full Magnum load, but I do know the characteristic goes with the barrel. I have not found a way to reliably check this thoroughly. But, I still check minimum diameter(s). Until you do, you do not know what you are shooting. I have seen a field barrel with Skeet sized ports, from the factory. As Forrest said, "Sh** happens".

_________________
What could have happened... did.
I do not trust Remington's dating service accuracy. If they were Match.com, you could end up with Nancy Pelosi.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:45 am 
Limited Edition

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:15 am
Posts: 340
Location: MD
I've taken to using an 11-87 smoothbore rifle sight deer barrel for turkey (w/ a turkey choke). 11-87 Deer barrels have gas cylinders without pressure compensating rings (or secondary ports). The primary ports (2) are similar to those on an 1100 Standard barrel but slightly smaller (.082 on the 11-87 Deer and .089 on the 1100). Without gas compensation, it seems to me that the Deer barrels would be ported like an 1100 Mag since slugs and buckshot are essentially magnum loads. I bet these Deer barrels really pound the receivers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:48 am 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 14236
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
A 12 gauge 11-87 deer barrel is supposed to have two 0.083" ports, uncompensated. Standard 1100 12 gauge ports are supposed to be 0.079". Maybe somebody drilled your ports. A Deer barrel is shorter, and in spite of all the slug hoopla, it is a lot easier to motivate a 1 ounce of slug than 1-1/2 ounces of shot, and it is also difficult to cram as much weight of buckshot into the case as with smaller shot. Until you go to 3-1/2" everything has the same upper pressure limit it has to stay within.

_________________
What could have happened... did.
I do not trust Remington's dating service accuracy. If they were Match.com, you could end up with Nancy Pelosi.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:39 pm 
Limited Edition

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:15 am
Posts: 340
Location: MD
My drill bit index jumps from .082 to .086 so I'm sure the ports in my deer barrel are correct (.083) if .082 is the closest fit. I'm puzzled though about the 1100 barrel because I know it measures .089 and I know the ports haven't been altered. I bought this 1100 new in the mid 90s - it was called an '1100 Synthetic'. It turned out to be very reliable and with the advent of better nontox shot options, I didn't feel undergunned with 2-3/4" Heavy Shot or Wingmaster HD (still have some of that) for ducks. It has a black nylon bolt buffer like the 11-87 but the smaller 870-type extractor. These were some of the last Field model 1100s Remington made I suppose. Do you think they adjusted the port size up a little at the very end? I tried two 11-87s subsequently, a 3" and 3-1/2" turkey model; they were not as reliable as my 1100. The problem was the trigger groups/assemblies as I recall. Remington had a bit of a rough spot in those years. What are the ports of an 11-87 field barrel (with compensating ring) supposed to measure?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:04 pm 
*Proud to be a*
*Proud to be a*
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:20 pm
Posts: 14236
Location: Williamsburg, Virginia
   Like I said, until you check your own ports, you never know. Maybe somebody drilled them and then returned the barrel to the factory, I don't know. I can't find anything that's 0.089", and the largest 1100 ports listed anywhere, anytime, are the Skeet ones. Your black synthetic was made when Remington was trying to do away with the 1100 and "encourage" folks to get the 11-87. Didn't work. They have made a bunch of blued and polished field models since.

1100 Porting

12ga-34” Trap .079”/ #47 drill 2 ea.
   12ga-30/28/26/22” .079”/ #47     2  “
   12ga-26” Skeet .086”/ #44    2  “
   12ga-26”(Compensator) .086”/ #44    2  “

11-87

   12ga 30” Premier/Field .101” /# 38 drill 2 ea. 
   12ga 28”   “          “   .101” /# 35       2   “
   12ga 26”    “          “ .116” /# 32    2   “
  12ga 30” Special Purpose   .101” /# 38       2   “
   12ga 26”      “          “     .116” /# 32     2   “
12ga 30” Trap .116” /# 32    2   “
12ga 28”    “ .120” /# 31       2   “
12ga 26” Skeet .125” /1/8"    2   “
   12ga 21” Spl Purpose Deer ( uncompensated) .083” 2 ea.

All uncompensated 11-87 target barrels, same as 1100.

_________________
What could have happened... did.
I do not trust Remington's dating service accuracy. If they were Match.com, you could end up with Nancy Pelosi.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1100 barrel swap question.
PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:14 am 
Limited Edition

Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:15 am
Posts: 340
Location: MD
Thanks for the list. My 11-87 field barrel ports are correct. I got my caliper out and discovered the .086 drill bit in the .089 hole in my bit index. It seems that my '1100 Synthetic' has the ports of a Skeet model.

Now that you mention it, I do recall a 1100 Classic Field version or something like that for a few years. There were a couple of new target models after that and only target models now, as far as I can tell.

It probably would not be a good idea to continue using my uncompensated deer barrel for turkey loads. That was my only doubt about any of the 11-87 barrels I use. I still wonder at the reason for so much porting in those, given their intended use.




Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Registered users: 204_ruger, 230rn, ABLongbow, AlexDavis, ATX Deputy, Auldthymer, Basstar, Bing [Bot], brnzbk, casonet, cbradford, CMT1, cookoff013, CrusherT, Cseybert9, CubaLibre, Dave in AZ, Dirtfarmer, DooFighter, drawdc, DUKFVR, Fitasc2, gomerdog, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, gwebb, HoosierHunter07, hopper810, ithacanut, JacksBack, [email protected], jeffreyk, John H, LG, lossking, Majestic-12 [Bot], misterdom, mpolans, MTmag, OBH Gun Club, ohio mike, oneounceload, Pickman, pitandremington, pjmx, Rack-N-Roy, rdk36, strut64, Stuck-N-Kali, T-Pee, tdyoung58, Tidefanatic, tmulder, trdjohn, Wheelspin, Wilfred1955, Win50, YevetS


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
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group    - DMCA Notice