Trapshooters Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3"

15K views 26 replies 16 participants last post by  kirbythegunsmith 
#1 ·
Got a call from a friend completing on using a 1100 to hunt with. He wanted to know what he needed to do to shoot 3” shells. I told him he needed a 3" barrel and a magnum recoil buffer but I was not sure of any other changes he should make. I looked in Kunhousers book and did not see anything. He has a Hastings Steel shot mag. barrel with a oversized gas port for steel shot and it has a I.C. Choke in it. Any one want to way in on this topic. Thanks in advance. Jim
 
#5 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

Jim, yes, that's the way to do it.

Except possibly the very earliest receivers, which are said to not be convertible to 3" but I have yet to find the reason why, a 2-3/4" gun can be converted to 3".

This is going to require a heavier action sleeve. The action sleeve is the hollow cylinder that moves forward and back on the mag tube.

The increased mass of the 3" magnum action sleeve slows down the bolt velocity moving rearward. The combination of the lighter action sleeve and magnum loads results in the bolt slamming hard into the back of the receiver, which can and will result in damaging parts and eventually cracking the receiver.

Remington made a 3" steel shot barrel that they approved for use on both 2-3/4" actions and 3" actions. But there was an explicit warning for 2-3/4" guns due to the lighter action sleeve. Only 3" steel shot could be used, not 3" lead. The latter would result in high bolt velocity, as I outlined above.

The question is, where can he get a magnum action sleeve? I don't know if Remington has them anymore. And the 1187 action sleeve won't work. It's the same as the 1100 2-3/4". I'd suggest checking with Remington but you might also consider putting a WTB ad here.
 
#6 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

A 1 1/4 oz of anything fired at comparable velocities will exert the same forces on the internal parts of an 1100 whether they were released from a 2 3/4" or 3" shell.

If its steel he is shooting,as said above: Put it on and shoot it.
 
#7 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

Many moons ago, my 2 3/4" 1100 was feed a steady diet of 1 1/2oz lead, 2 3/4's. Its still shooting.
Tanda1? what is your point? Your 2 3/4 inch 1100 was built to shoot 2 3/4 inch 1 1/2 loads? Why wouldn't it still be shooting?

I guess you might be thinking that most 3 inch steel loads are 1 1/4? So what would the diffrence be?

Remington made a diffrent action sleeve for some reason.

I would install one if I was ever going to shoot a lead 3 inch shell.

It make sense that a 3 inch 1 1/4 steel load should not be an overload for the 2 3/4 inch action sleeve but the proof willl be in the shooting.Jeff
 
#13 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

Change out the action sleeve to a magnum action sleeve and that is all the difference. Numrich has the old style original magnum sleeves for $44 or order part number F200565 from Remington at $35. This is the action sleeve for an 11-87 super magnum and is the same. Have used both.
 
#14 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

Here is a question, if a 1187 uses the regular sleeve and shoots 2 3/4 or 3 inch. Whats the difference in an 1100? In my opinion, nothing. With that said why do you need to change the sleeve? In my opinion having shot heavy payload Bismuth and heavy shot for nearly two decades through my 1100 with an 1187 barrel changing nothing and no problems.I do religously check the action spring, and have replaced it several times. I do not shoot the 2oz turkey loads,don't need them. Jeff
 
#15 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

Jeff- Not quite. The 1187 is factory CHAMBERED for 3", the 1100 non-magnum is NOT. The 1187 has a compensation system build into the gas collar to bleed off excessive gas when shooting heavy shells, the 1100 (magnum or not) does not.

Now if you use a 1187 barrel on a 1100, you should theoretically be fine with 3" magnum shells, but that would be the only way, unless you use the magnum action sleeve and a magnum 1100 barrel.
 
#16 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

You dont get the point, a 1187 is just a 1100 with a stainless mag tube. Remington got it to work with light and heavy loads by using the light action sleeve and two ports in the barrel,like the 2 3/4 1100.There is no magic gas system for the 1187 it simply has two ports.Ask Jay Bunting,HE knows what is correct. Jeff
 
#17 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

The 1187 has 4 gas ports, two that direct gas toward the action sleeve to function the gun, and two that vent excessive gas, which are covered by a spring, which vents the proper amount of gas.

This is a pic of the spring which covers the outer ports:
<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v292/Skeet_Man/?action=view&current=imagesqtbnANd9GcRdxtzdu0HXVjo2rVj5j.jpg" target="_blank">
</a>

The 1187 is not just an 1100 with a stainless magazine.
 
#18 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

LOL , that was the first style of barrel ,no longer used.The movable ring was used so the barrel could not be used on a 1100 when it came out. What you do not show is the stamped metal ring that contains the old style gas system you show.With the ring in place you cannot get an original 1100 forearm over the 1187 barrel and ring. If you try to use it without the stamped ring the band moves forward stopping function. It was used to stop consumers from putting 1187 barrels on 1100 guns and only for that reason. I simply weld it up.The mew ones dont have it. Jeff
 
#19 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

That is EXACTLY the same style gas cylinder currently used on the 1187 line. My dad has a 1187 Sportsman Synthetic (current generation) that has that exact system. I also worked on an 1187 Sportman that is less than 6 months old (purchased brand new at Dicks) that has the exact same design. It has NOT been discontinued. The 1187 TARGET (trap and skeet) barrels did not have the gas bleed feature, which may be where you are confused. They were designed for TARGET loads only. The 1187 SLUG barrels don't have a gas bleed system either, since the gas ports are bored for heavy loads anyways.

The gas cylinder collar "stamped metal ring" was installed to prevent the spring from opening too much (it limited the amount it could flex/open). It had NOTHING to do with preventing the interchange of barrels, it was simply a necessity of the gas-bleed design. It did keep you from using an 1100 forend with an 1187 barrel, but as long as you mated the 1187 barrel with an 1187 forend, you were fine. This would in NO WAY prevent someone from using an 1187 barrel on an 1100, only make it slightly less convenient.

The newest generation of SYNTHETIC 1187s don't have the gas cylinder collar. The synthetic forend is designed in such a way as to allow the forend itself to take the place of the collar and limit the springs movement.
 
#21 ·
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
 
#22 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
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
 
#24 ·
Change a 1100 2 3/4 into a 3

Kirby, that is not what 1100 service manuals, nor Brownells, nor other sources say is the reason for the heavier action sleeve. They cite the heavier mass being used to slow bolt velocity. Can you cite a source for that? I searched for quite some time for substantiation on what you say and have not found it.
 
#25 ·
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
 
#26 ·
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top