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