Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I`ve got a remington 1100 magnum reciever I bought, the barrel is stamped 3". It will not cycle any 2 3/4" shell of any kind. What can i do to make it cycle 2 3/4" shells? When i first bought it, a few years ago, it would cycle a high brass 2 3/4. I`ve cleaned thoroughly, checked the assembly of piston and ring, cleaned out gas hole, new gas seal. Some folks tell me to get a new barrel stamped 2 3/4". Some tell me to either drill the gas hole bigger, or drill another hole all together. some say order a different set of gas rings and piston. Some tell me to get new springs. ???????????? Should i just sell the thing, i love it but missed to many grouse without having a second chance. $500 single shot!! Oh, and i cut the original barrel from 32" full choke, down to 26" with interchangeables. That have anything to do with it? I would assume no, but I`m no engineer. The man who cut and thread said it would be just fine. Please help, i will not invest till i have some solid info. I can provide pics or serial #s if that helps. Grouse are waiting to be chased around.

Jim

An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,064 Posts
Damn a 32" gone. It would have been neat to have. No cutting it down to 26" won't affect your cycling.
A 2 3/4" chambered barrel is the best way of doing it. It is an 1100 after all. That what one does with them. They aren't 11-87's that do both on the fly.

Stought 2 3/4" loads probably could make it cycle, but it isn't a given.

Replacing springs isn't any answer. Magnum and the standard use the same one.

Gas ports is an arguement for the ages. If you did reem it say just .001" at a time it might only take a couple .001" to get it to function with heavy 2 3/4" field loads. Your not asking for much. The result is even just that little though does make a differance when you go back to them 3" loads. The pressure is a tad higher then causing the action to absorb more. Not much more, but it is in general a practice looked down upon. The 1100 doesn't use a gas compensation system that of the 11-87 which is hardly a system, but in thoery if the pressure was too great it would releave itself before damage to the action would occure. The 1100 doesn't have this and damage could be likely if you modified them ports too much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,064 Posts
Your barrel should have one port. The measurment should be .073" which is a #49 drill bit. You didn't say but sometimes in the use of steel shot they suggested up to two drill bit sizes bigger on the ports. There you go. Look into that and see if you get where you want to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts
It makes me cringe every time I read a post about an 1100 cycling issue and inevitably the FIRST thing people do, or suggest doing is Enlarging the gas port to make it bigger! Dudes, seriously? WTF??

(Generically)
Hello all you geniuses out there - don't you think the engineers who designed and tested the guns before putting them into production knew the best size to make the ports? Enlarging gas ports will RUIN your gun in short order by overdriving the action and battering the gun unncessarily heavy

If the gun doesn't cycle, there are number of issues to check first before messing around and RUINING excellent barrels - especially hard to find older ones!

Take the 1100 Magnum for instance. First of all - as one poster pointed out - there is one large gas port. The 1100 Magnum was designed to work with 3" magnum and the HEAVIEST of the 2-3/4" magnum loads ONLY. It also came with HEAVIER piston rings and a HEAVIER action bar sleeve. Use a 2-3/4" chambered barrel and leave the 3" barrel alone.

Now it does help to clean the ports occasionally with a drill bit in a pin vise used as a pick and cleaning the chamber and gas cylinder.

Secondly, gas port sizes on 2-3/4" chambered 1100s vary in size with slightly larger ones being on the skeet barrels (0.85" vs 0.77"?)I don't have the precise measurement but it's available
Third, The new "one-piece" piston/piston seal arrangement is intended to work with field loads and often fails to cylce target loads becuase it needs twice the energy to start moving it I know that is not te issue with the Magnum, but I'm including it for thhose people who do have problems with it.

But please, please stop resporting to "opening up the ports" as the cure all because it is the WRONG thing to do and is potenitally unsafe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
903 Posts
First,
I would like to state that I recommend that all potential issues other than gas port opening should be considered before any port alteration is allowed.

Remington barrels are already made with various port sizes due to expected shell size and style of shooting. Barrel length is another reason for port size variance, so whenever a barrel has been altered by cutting, there may be a valid reason to alter the port(s)
IF
all other potential function conditions are rectified first.

Realize that over-driving is a fact of life with any self operating system, and that is why some pounding action is to be expected and dealt with by the buffer and/or robustness of the impacting parts. (the overdrive is needed to ensure operation with the expected light loads in cold weather with some dirt in the mechanism i.e. not be on the finely tuned edge with no reserve operating ability)
That is why there are bolt buffers, receiver mounted buffers, (some guns use plunger buffers in the action spring tube to reduce rebound action, as well) and some consideration of impact surface contours to minimize long-term damage.

A standard 2-3/4" 1100 barrel (12 ga.) is expected to be safely used with everything from a light 1 oz. load and up to the heavy turkey load of max. dram (now 1250 fps 1-5/8 oz.) while utilizing 2 gas ports, so if that is not considered a damaging situation, a small amount of port opening is not enough to rend the frame in twain.

A barrel expected to be used with nothing but robust loads (like the old 34" duck/goose barrel actually made with just one gas port) should still function with the expected loads, but if made in a 34" TRAP configuration, another gas hole is part of the design for reliability.

In essence, don't consider port alteration unless all else fails, and with recommended procedures and testing, should minimize over-abuse of the mechanical parts if slight port enlargement is necessary for reliability.

[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,064 Posts
northeastm1a said:
It makes me cringe every time I read a post about an 1100 cycling issue and inevitably the FIRST thing people do, or suggest doing is Enlarging the gas port to make it bigger! Dudes, seriously? WTF??

(Generically)
Hello all you geniuses out there - don't you think the engineers who designed and tested the guns before putting them into production knew the best size to make the ports? Enlarging gas ports will RUIN your gun in short order by overdriving the action and battering the gun unncessarily heavy
I didn't suggest doing the ports first. Probably should have ran through every thing to do prior on an 1100 and I didn't since several times a week it is posted 50 times over. I got lazy. To the original poster I'm sorry.
Engineers are one thing, but there are conditions they didn't foresee. The ports aren't what they are supposed to be always. They have burs or crud restricting them, not drilled all the way through or in this case shortend. When I wrote my first post I didn't think cutting the barrel down would've mattered much. Looking at the port sizes per barrels that maybe incorrect. Which is why I wrote the second post. Though it is a hard one to judge since magnum action barrels have the one port and standards had two and 26" barrel this one has been made into doesn't corresponed with the factory 2 port 26" barrels. Now I'm taking a stab at this information I found to grasp it and write what I think it suggests. It suggests the ports ever so slightly be enlarged if steel loads didn't function. I'd guess because they're basing the port sizes on lead loads and the steel ones generate a little less pressure? thus inconsistant function.. Anyway regaurdless of the ammo used it isn't always wrong to mod the port size it is just the final option when everything has been exhausted. It sounds like he had with in reason exhausted everything and also the gun worked with heavy 2 3/4 loads prior to cutting it down. So the ports maybe a valid option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,014 Posts
Since you have already invested money in the Magnum barrel by having it shortened and screw in chokes added, I would suggest you contact Gander Mountain to have one of their conversions done to your barrel. They will add a second port that will let the gun function with lighter loads. The second port is threaded and you screw in a plug screw when you want to shoot the heavier loads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thank you all!!
I called Remington, they said that model and barrel should shoot 2 3/4". They said ship it to them. They`ll fix it. I`ll let them try.

Thanks for the tips and input.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
jimsunder90 said:
Thank you all!!
I called Remington, they said that model and barrel should shoot 2 3/4". They said ship it to them. They`ll fix it. I`ll let them try.

Thanks for the tips and input.
Remington is going to fix a problem with a barrel that you had cut down and threaded for chokes. That is hard to believe.

If you want it to cycle 2 3/4 " light target loads then just buy a 2 3/4" or shorter barrel of gunbroker to shoot light loads with. Then you'll have to barrels to use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
Something I didn't see mentioned by anyone here. You didn't state exactly what it was doing/not doing! You just said "won't cycle". Is it not kicking out the spent shell? Is it not feeding the second round in from the shell lifter. Stove-piping? Advice without knowing the whole problem can be quit vague. Most 1100 light load cycle problems I have seen have had less to do with the barrel and more to do with everything else, Ammo, trigger group, magazine spring, etc. I have even seen one that had the hole in the back of the action spring tube sealed up from a tight fitting stock and causing a hydraulic effect on the action spring follower. There are different remedies for different feed problems and without knowing what you have everyone is just guessing and if Remington said they can fix it I would have to guess you told them a lot more than you posted here, Or you may be no better off after you get your barrel back than you were before.
I hope you get it fixed but if not post some more info and we can try this again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,064 Posts
If they do fix it it is going to be a port job. Nothing else to do except that on that barrel. Could have been it at home minus the down time and money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
Virginian said:
I have no doubts Remington can "fix" it. I just wonder if they will, and what it will cost.
I am a pretty trusting guy but if they only get the barrel and the barrel ain't the problem how are they going to "Fix" it?! :? Unless you mean the kind of "fix" you get when you take your dog to the vet. :lol: :lol: Other than "mouse fart" loads or slow burn powder reloads I haven't seen opening the ports be effective in solving anything beside determining what parts are the weakest when you shoot full loads again! :roll:
.
.
.
My bad; I ain't "pretty" :oops: .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,141 Posts
I read it again and now I don't know why I was thinking he was just sending the barrel. :? "Model and barrel" sounds like a whole gun to me now :oops: .
So now I'm also wondering how many parts they are going to say it needs and how much $$$$$ before they will say it's "fixed"! :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Well folks, I talked to a tech at Remington yesterday. He told me a different story than what they had originally said about it supposedly being able to shoot all length`s of shells.

Well, let me start off by saying what the gun was doing. Oh, and I did send them the whole gun.
It would not even open the port upon firing a lowbrass shell. If I fired a high brass 3" it would "stove pipe",almost ejecting it.

The tech said they would not drill or recommend drilling. He said he would recommend new sleaves and piston,and gas seal to fix the magnum barrel. That would fix the shooting of the 3" load. Then he said to shoot a 2 3/4", I would need a 12/26 barrel and a lighter set of sleaves and piston. So he offered me this; new vr 12/26 barrel with 3 rem chokes, light load sleave and piston seal kit, and a heavy load(magnum) set of sleaves/piston, and something he called a new follower, and a complete internal/external cleaning (said it would look like new), all for $218.33 shipped to my door ups.

What do yall think, sounds pretty good to me?

Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,064 Posts
That sounds like a lot of farting around plus more money. I'd sell the thing/trade it and buy an 11-87 Premier and ditch the 1100.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top