Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3"

Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

Points to note: a Supermag action sleeve is unique to it and not anything like an 1100 magnum action sleeve.

The 1100 and 11/87 have slightly different locations of the mag tube groove meant to hold the o-ring and make use of the alternate barrel problematic if you expect to use the o-ring seal.


The heavier action sleeve for the magnum 1100 is not meant to slow the bolt velocity, but was meant to allow the one gas port to have more inertia available from a slower bolt speed with one port in comparison to two with a magnum load, so it was more likely to complete a full stroke and had better "follow-thru" than with a lighter sleeve and higher initial bolt velocity - thus the heavier sleeve.

The Supermag 11/87 goes the other way, by depending on higher speed bolt travel (over the longest stroke length) and the lightest sleeve of the 12 ga. guns, and uses the gas comp. system that our SkeetMan mentioned and helpfully pictured. Of course, the 3.5" gun has a bit more length and mass of the action bar/bolt/link/follower assemblage that is considered as a unit for stroking mass (compared to typical 1100, for instance), just like the piston, rings, bearings, rod pin, etc. for a reciprocating engine are considered as a unitized package for blueprinting purposes.


Kirby

Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

Why would he want to change to 3" shells , what purpose could that serve? I have an 1100T that I purchased in 1973. It is a 2 3/4" chambered and I have 3 barrels for it including a smoothbore slug barrel. I ahve never felt the need to shoot 3" weather deer.turkey or waterfoul hunting.

Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

We used to lengthen the forcing cones here and then tapped one of the two gas port holes and inserted the appropriate size Allenhead set-screw.

Worked for us. I was a certified Remington Authorized Repair Center many years ago, and they kept telling me not the shoot 3" in a 2 3/4" gun EVEN with a 3" shell barrel. I kept asking them what the differences were in the receivers, and they never could tell me much.

WW

Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

Good checking there, Brian, but the sources are incorrect and trading the same wrong information back and forth until they think that it has been cross-checked 7 ways from Sunday.

Bolt velocity has been slowed by going to one gas port from two, wouldn't you think? To make the bolt travel have enough follow-through with that slower initial velocity, you must add to the reciprocating mass i.e. the heavier non-cut-down O.D. action bar sleeve.

That is also called "inertia sleeve" by some, for good reason, since it is the single largest bulk of mass in movement. Otherwise, why would they have said it was OK to use the magnum action sleeve in place when swapping to a 2-3/4" barrel (containing 2 gas vent holes) without problem for a magnum action set-up, but not to use a 2-3/4" gun with a magnum barrel (except a steel-shot barrel with one port, but that port being larger than the port on a typical magnum barrel)?


[Notice the Winchester Model 50 recoil operated shotgun design uses a solid steel "inertia rod" to create sufficient reciprocating mass for cycle completion once the recoiling chamber has moved about .100" to the rear upon firing, with the mass continuing the necessary travel for operation. That design is susceptible to cycle failure if the recoiling chamber is not held fully forward at the instant of firing, either due to weak or short extension of spring and plunger, for instance. Then you wouldn't have enough input to develop sufficient inertial mass velocity to allow the mechanism to fully cycle.]

Not because the lighter sleeve and greater initial bolt velocity was harmful, but because the lesser inertia available might reduce reliability of function due to the lighter action bar sleeve.

If a lighter action bar sleeve equipped 2-3/4" standard action and a 2 gas port 2-3/4" barrel shooting high brass 2-3/4" shells was not on the "do not do this" list, what with all the super-fast bolt velocity that such a situation would entail, then if that was not considered as receiver and parts abuse, the same setup action (lighter sleeve) and a one hole magnum barrel couldn't possibly slam the receiver guts as hard as the aforementioned scenario.

BTW, the source of my own independent corroboration is a 45 year veteran (his only real job for life) of Remington, who started as a machine operator and would eventually be next to the plant manager and be in charge of customer product service, armorer school (and be responsible for the training of armorer instructors) the Remington Museum, and for some time wore the hats of outside litigation examiner (with court testimony responsibilities) and had been years in the (destruct) testing and experimentation labs during his career.


That is why, when I told him things that I had found that he hadn't heard about from line service personnel, he'd take my information to use as assistance for production line problem reduction and other similar situations.

I could ask him for clarification on certain issues that I already knew in my own mind, but wanted another "qualified" mind to verify.


One such example was bandied about on another forum concerning an apparent cratering of primers issue in the Remington Semi-auto rifles that was claimed by a few to be sure signs of high pressure, but was a factory gun/mechanism/ammo and even had similar examples shown from an AK-74 semi and factory mil-type ammo.

I had a minimal post count vs. another gunsmith that had over 8000, but stuck to my explanation and got an official Remington letter and sample fired cases that were identical to use as corroboration. Only at that point was I given some grudging slack, rather than being suspected of condoning potential disaster.

I have found that picture set I posted on some site from South America to make note of primer cratering, of all things.

I do not take safety lightly, nor condone fear-mongering due to incorrect information. That is why any and all that expect to make an issue about a lighter sleeve causing destructive capabilities to inexplicably exist when coupled with a magnum barrel using only one gas hole are all woefully mistaken and/or deceived in their advice. The argument may be made that the magnum pressures are higher, when really it is the "dwell time" that is more relevant, since shorter barrels need to have larger vent holes to let through more gas volume in a shorter bleed "phase" to allow reliable cycling.


Now tell me if that explanation makes sense to you readers, if you please.


Kirby, the gunsmith's gunsmith

Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

Interesting, but I'm not real comfortable just yet with the part about one vs two gas holes. I've misplaced my Kuhnhausen book, so I have not had a chance to compare the actual total area of one gas port vs the area for two gas ports.

Still, there is merit in what you are saying, but I cannot fully dismiss the bolt velocity issue as being invalid. Perhaps there is merit in both assertions, and the heavier sleeve is a dual-benefit.

BTW, speaking of the heavier magnum sleeve being used on a 2-3/4" barrel, I've found some of the softest shooting trap guns are 1100 Magnum receivers with a trap barrel. Even my son's LT-20 Magnum with a 2-3/4" barrel is soft shooting. Makes me wonder why Remington did not simply use a magnum action sleeve for everything in the first place.

Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

From the Remington supplied chart, concerning 2 hole std. 1100 barrels, 12 ga.:


SKEET or Compensator, .086 per


34" Full Trap down to 21" special Field, .079 per


21" slug barrel is a pair of .081



One hole barrels:


34" (2-3/4") Duck/Goose and 3" (30" Full listed) Magnum, both come with .073


The Steel Shot barrel is one hole of .086



See that the one hole barrels (with the exception of the steel barrel) are even smaller than just one of the "two hole" barrels, for 1100.


1100 20 ga. original std. is two hole for 2-3/4, and one for 3", at .076 per hole, so one drill does them all



Now for 11/87, see the difference for barrel length (all 2 hole set-up):


26" typical std. barrel is .116, 28" is .110, 30" is .101


Target barrels: 26" .125, 28" .120, 30" is .116


The short specialty barrels that use no compensator spring: 21" slug is .082 and Turkey barrel is .073


Police 18" is .110 and the 21" is .083



Now the question is, how do they think that a smaller single hole is making a light sleeve abusive to the action, but a heavier sleeve is not?


The heavier sleeve in use with stiff magnum loads in a 2-3/4" high brass shell might be unnecessarily "over-exuberant" in the slam-back of a 2-hole 2-3/4" barrel set-up, so the lighter sleeve serves it's purpose in that scenario by reducing the inertial pounding of the parts by the extra mass. If a lighter sleeve has sufficient mass to complete the stroke, more mass is excess mass, so the Super-mag action sleeve is really a lightweight, but they use a special extra sealing "activator ring" with lighter loads to make more gas "oomph".


Kirby