Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Shooting 2-3/4" Shells in a Remington 1100 Magnum

1,701 views
Skip to first unread message

dleg...@freedomnet.com

unread,
Sep 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/24/96
to

LI>>Bersh <sc...@up.net> writes:
LI>>I have an 1100 Special Purpose which is a 3" Magnum. I can shoot 2-3/4"
LI>>shells, they just have to be heavy game or high power loads. Low brass
LI>>shells don't have enough power to activate the action. As long as I
LI>>keep it fairly clean and shoot the high brass, I don't have problems.
LI>>
LI>>Scott

I couldn't trace this thread back to the original post but it
appears to have been regarding a Remington 1100 Magnum's
ability to shoot 2-3/4" shells. I have one too and, as Scott
said, mine will cycle with 2-3/4" magnums and some 2-3/4" high
velocity shells. It will not, however, cycle with low velocity
or skeet loads out of the 3" barrel. Apparently, a little
known fact about these guns is that you can install a
conventional 2-3/4" barrel on the magnum receiver and they will
cycle perfectly with the lightest field loads and mine does.
This fact is not advertised in any Remington catalog nor have I
seen it mentioned in any gun magazine. I therefore didn't
believe it the first time I heard it. I asked several
gunsmiths who confirmed that it would work. Still not
convinced, I wrote the Remington factory and they said yes it
worked fine and was perfectly safe. I immediately went out and
bought a 26" IC barrel for mine and have shot probably a 1000
2-3/4" light field loads through it at doves and don't recall
over one or two failures to feed. I think this makes the 1100
magnum a pretty versatile gun. I also bought a 2-3/4" slug
barrel with rifle sights for it and it also works great.

Dave LeGrande

coach

unread,
Sep 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/30/96
to

Thanks for the info on the 2 3/4" barrell. My wife has a 20 ga. and it
has a hard time with the 2 3/4: shells. Jim

Dick Pearson

unread,
Oct 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/2/96
to
As I recall, the differences are the size of the gas port, on the
barrel, which allows the lighter loads to "use" more of the gas to cycle
the mechanism, and the position of the ejector, which is further towards
the rear of the receiver on the 3" gun, which allows the longer casing
to clear the front edge of the ejection port.

Terry W. Schneider

unread,
Oct 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM10/3/96
to

Actually its the number of gas ports, 1 in the magnum barrel and two in the
2-3/4" barrel. (at least in my LT 20 Magnum). I have use two barrels for
15+ years (not at the same time, of course) to assure cycling with the
appropriate shells. It did not take any fitting or anything, just take one
off and put the other on. 'Course I always seem to have the wrong
barrel..... Terry
Dick Pearson <rose...@inetw.net> wrote in article
<3252B2...@inetw.net>...

> dleg...@freedomnet.com wrote:
> >
> > LI>>Bersh <sc...@up.net> writes:
>
> >
> > I couldn't trace this thread back to the original post but it
> > appears to have been regarding a Remington 1100 Magnum's
> > ability to shoot 2-3/4" shells. I have one too and, as Scott
> > said, mine will cycle with 2-3/4" magnums and some 2-3/4" high
> > velocity shells. It will not, however, cycle with low velocity
> > or skeet loads out of the 3" barrel. Apparently, a little
> > known fact about these guns is that you can install a
> > conventional 2-3/4" barrel on the magnum receiver and they will
> > cycle perfectly with the lightest field loads and mine does.
> > This fact is not advertised in any Remington catalog nor have I
> > seen it mentioned in any gun magazine. I therefore didn't
> > believe it the first time I heard it. I asked several
> > gunsmiths who confirmed that it would work. Still not
> > convinced, I wrote the Remington factory and they said yes it
> > worked fine and was perfectly safe. I immediately went out and
> > bought a 26" IC barrel for mine and have shot probably a 1000
> > 2-3/4" light field loads through it at doves and don't recall
> > over one or two failures to feed.
> >
0 new messages