[Kiriakos]

I know , they are incomparable, but give me your opinion anyway. The Baikal is new and the Remington is bought but never used. They both cost the same, around $500.
Thanks

 

[glenn morrison]

Depends on which feels best and what the intended use will be.
If it's going to be used to crush clays and look good go with the Remington.
If it's going to be used to drop ducks and geese, and may occasionally find it's way to the bottom of the duck boat/ blind go Baikal.

I've bought remingtons second hand before and haven't had any troubles whatsoever, so don't let small amounts of use scare you off. That being said, I am purchaseing a new Baikal mp153 on Friday. Baikal's are available online from several sources. Cheapest i've found so far is through USA Gun sales via davidsons with lifetime replacement warranty in either wood or synthetic for $322. Also available through cdnninvestments.com with factory warranty for $262. Other members of this forum have led me to these finds so i'm leadin ya there also. Just make sure to leave one for me!!

 

[jlptexashunter]

REMINGTON!!!!!

Dump it in the mud, shake it out and keep shooting. They are not even comparable.

 

[GordonSetter]

I would take the Baikal as it is a more flexable gun and has a better gas system. As far a dropping an auto in the much and then shooting it ... I wouldn't try it on any auto, too much to go wrong. The Baikal should not cost anywhere near $500. CDNN is the cheapest place to get the gun right now.

I can tell you this gun strips in seconds without tools, shoots anything you feed it (put a 2 3/4" target load and a 3" buckshot in the mag at the same time), it can fire while a dirty, it has many screw in chokes avalible and the fit and finsh on mine is top noch.

 

[SamL]

I've never heard of a "Remington 1170". Do you mean "1100" or "11-87" maybe?

Assuming it's one of the above models I'd take the Remington in a heartbeat. You can get aftermarket parts for it, it has a loyal following, and there are many 'smiths out there familiar with it so you can get it worked on if need be. None of these are true of the Baikal (well, I suppose Gordon constitutes a "loyal folllowing", but... )

Gordon really likes his Baikals, but I don't trust them. I've seen two need repairs, both due to faulty firing pins, and the only way that was effected was by getting the gun replaced (Davidson's warranty). These were O/Us, not semis, but it still speaks badly of the manufacturer. I was even originally going to get one myself, but after looking at a few I realized why they were so much cheaper than the competition.

If you can get a Remington for a price that's even in the same ballpark there shouldn't be a question as to which to get, IMO.

-- Sam

 

[Ulysses]

I agree with SamL on this one. I admit that I know very little about the Baikal except that it's cheap. I do know that the Remington 1100 and 1187 are good guns. Parts are readily available for them almost anywhere and the parts are very inexpensive. They are also easy to replace by yourself. If you can follow simple directions in an owners manual, there is not a single part on the Remington that you can't change/replace by yourself. Remington has been making the 1100 for about 40 years and the very similar 1187 for 15 years. There are millions of them already in existence in this country. Even if they stopped making them today, parts for them would still be readily available for the next 50+ years due to the large number of guns in existence. You can't say that about the Baikal. As I see it, the Remington auto is the safe bet. The Baikal is a gamble. At least that is the way it looks to me.

 

[Guest]

OK, take this into your consideration :
in this part of the world the Baikal costs $450 and the Remi 11-87 $1,200.
Would you still prefer the Remi with the nice finish or buy 3 Baikals?

 

[glenn morrison]

THANK YOU GUEST! Some of us are still having to work for a livin'. :wink: Haven't been lucky enough to hit the lottery yet, then again haven't had the buck for the ticket! :lol: A man has to have some priorities and shells are just gettin too dang expensive!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Guest]

I am the original poster Kiriakos and not a "guest". I simply could not post under my name for some reason and I was forced to use the "guest" name.
Still my question is valid and reasonable. Anybody else to help me decide?

 

[jlptexashunter]

I bet the one 11-87 or 1100 would out last all three of the Baikals.
This again is not even a comparison we're talking apples and oranges in my opinion.

 

[Guest]

The Baikal is called by fellow shooters as a "hunting mule".
I tend to believe that you do not risk anything at this price even if it proves to be a lemon. I just am a newcomer in the field and do not want to invest heavily before I am sure that I like what I am doing.

 

[GordonSetter]

You know me jlptexashunter, I'd put the MP153 up against any other auto shotgun. Well except my Saiga, I've been trying and I just can't get that gun to fail or slow down.

 

[Ulysses]

Gordonsetter,

I'm curious. How many rounds have you put through your MP153? 500? 1000? 2000?

 

[GordonSetter]

Well let me clarify, it is my wife's gun. I have put 300 rounds through it, she has put about 900. 1200 isn't much I know, but the gun has had 0 problems and is every bit as tight as the day I bought it. It has shot slugs, buck, 7.5 field loads and 8 trap loads. The gun has taken it all and kept going. I even negected it for a while just to see what would happen ... this gun works better than any other auto I have seen or shot.

 

[Ulysses]

Gordonsetter,

Thanks for the prompt reply. I just wanted an idea of how much your gun had been shot. IMO, the size shot (#8, #7.5, buckshot, or slugs) has little effect on the operating ability of the gun. Usually, if the gun will shoot one shot size, it will shoot another shot size just as reliably. Different brands of ammo will have much more effect on functional reliability than shot size.

To give you a comparison to a couple of my automatics, I have put about 1500 rounds through a Rem 1100 with no parts breakage and no failures to feed after the first 200 to 300 rounds to break in the gun. I've put about 10,000 rounds through a Beretta 390 with no parts breakage and perhaps 1 failure to feed every 2000 rounds when using the Wally World cheap ammo. BTW, I typically go about 1500 rounds before giving the Beretta a good cleaning.

My shooting volume would be considered as light when compared to moderate or heavy usage by dedicated clay target shooters. There are many automatics that have seen 30K, 50K, and a few that have seen 100K rounds through them.

I'm not trying to disparage the Baikal MP153 in any way. I'm just saying that until you have put 20K, 30K, or more rounds through the gun, then you really haven't put enough rounds through it to compare its durability with the guns that are used the most in competition. In fact, one of the knocks on the Remington 1100 is that it will go ONLY about 30K rounds before you have to start replacing small, inexpensive parts. :?

 

[SamL]

We had yet another Baikal fail at the trap line last night. Another O/U, not the semi. More firing pin problems, as well as the top barrel not firing at all (could be the pin), as well as what appeared to be a 25lb trigger pull. This was the one with the stainless/polished/plated receiver. This is the third one that i've seen that had serious problems.

Sorry, I just can't trust 'em. With other makes you get hundreds of guns that work right and the occassional lemon. It is my (admittedly, extremely limited) experience with Baikals that you get many, many defective or poorly assembled ones, and the occassional good one.

Re:

OK, take this into your consideration :
in this part of the world the Baikal costs $450 and the Remi 11-87 $1,200. Would you still prefer the Remi with the nice finish or buy 3 Baikals?

He comes here looking for advice, then gets an attitude when he hears something he doesn't like. Hmph. Anyway:

To me, it isn't about "nice finishes" it's about a functioning firearm. If I lived in an area where those prices were the norm I would be even more concerned about getting a gun that worked right out of the box, because you can bet it will be a pain in your backside to get parts or service. You can get Remington parts from several Internet-based sources (Brownells, Midway, etc.) For the Baikal I doubt you'll find any. You probably don't have Davidson's lifetime replacement warranty available to you. Therefore you are stuck with the gun you get. Would you rather save up for a gun that will "most likely" be perfect out of the box, or gamble $450 that you'll be one of the lucky ones to get a functional Baikal? You might have to go through 3 of them to find one that works. In this case, to my way of thinking, the safer bet is spending more money up front.

FWIW, it's not like I'm a Remington snob, I don't even own one. I'm talking from a strictly practical standpoint.

-- Sam

 

[Guest]

He comes here looking for advice, then gets an attitude when he hears something he doesn't like. Hmph.
-- Sam

I do not know why you are under the impression that I got attitude. I just needed some opinions and nothing more. And of course I can't compare the two guns but as I said before I cannot invest heavily in a gun before I know I like what I am doing.
Are you always so edgy? Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[SamL]

I do not know why you are under the impression that I got attitude. I just needed some opinions and nothing more. And of course I can't compare the two guns but as I said before I cannot invest heavily in a gun before I know I like what I am doing. Are you always so edgy? Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was trying to be funny. That's where the "Hmph" came from. Sorry I didn't include a smiley. (And yes, I'm always "edgy". It's part of my Resident Curmudgeon training. )

But it did strike me odd that you asked for input, and when that input didn't match what you apparently wanted to hear you came back with, "Oh yeah, well I can get 3 of these for the price of 1 of those shiny things."

Buy what you want - it's your money. As I said in another note somewhere, if you're happy buying the cheapest of the cheap, go for it. That's why those manufacturers are in business. But don't think you're going to get the quality or support you'll get from a major brand.

And try reading the other parts of my previous posting; I think you'll see my reasoning if you look.

-- Sam

P.S. But didn't this start out with you saying you could get the Rem (used) and the Baikal (new) for about the same price?

 

[GordonSetter]

Well I got the gun for my wife on mothers day so she is on her way to 30k just fine. As far as shot size look at the shell types not just the shot size. The point is this gun takes the lightest and heaviest shells of 2-3/4 all the way to 3-1/2 without changing the setup. What other auto gun can say that? Usually if you set the gun up for light loads it will cause damage if you fire a hot load. If setup for hot it will not cycle light loads.
I did talk to a guy who had his gun for 2 years and put 10k+ through it and said it was the best gun he ever had. So all in all do what you are most comfortable with, I think the Baikal's are going to surprise a lot of folks in the U.S. I'm betting it will be a situation like when Honda came to the U.S. Nobody wanted to touch them, but now they sell better that the American cars. (Anyone who gets in a bundle over my comparing Baikal to Honda look at the numbers. Baikal guns have been selling in Europe and the western block since 1963. Since year 1 of their operation they have been growing. And much like Honda they are only introducing the best selling division to you right now. They also make power tools, appliances, oil equipment, medical electronics and food processing equipment. They are not a fly by night company. They started with guns and grew like a weed so to speak. To date the company has produced 10,000,000,000 hunting class shotguns, that's about 250,000,000 per year since 1963. Add in the military guns, pistols, air rifles and hunting rifles and that's a ton of guns for a "smaller" manufacture.)
As far as the O/U failing due to the pin ... this is a common problem that was fixed as of last years gun. If the gun is under warrantee EAA will install the new pin for free. Otherwise the guy will have to call and get a price.

 

[Ulysses]

To date the company has produced 10,000,000,000 hunting class shotguns, that's about 250,000,000 per year since 1963. Add in the military guns, pistols, air rifles and hunting rifles and that's a ton of guns for a "smaller" manufacture.)

Whoa, just a minute :!: Hold on there Gordy. I think you need to check these figures :!: :!: :!:

TEN BILLION hunting class shotguns :?: :!: That is enough shotguns for every man, woman, and child in the United States to own one and still have Nine Billion, Seven Hundred Million shotguns left over. I don't know the total population of the world, but I'll bet that is nearly enough guns for everyone on this planet to have a Baikal hunting type shotgun.

Let's put this into perspective another way. Remington has made somewhere near 8 million Model 870 shotguns since 1950. You are saying that Baikal is producing 250 MILLION hunting class shotguns EACH YEAR? Bull****! That is saying they are producing 31 times as many shotguns in ONE year as Remington produced the Model 870 in 53 years! Hells bells, man. Surely you don't expect us to believe that :!: