Yes sir fully aware of what the original owners manual has printed BUT
Cheers
The but from others with the issue and matches what I was told
Somewhere on this site there was a discussion about the need for the barrel seal activator on the 1187 20 ga. I couldnt locate that thread, so I wrote Remington today as follows:
"Web chat groups debate whether the barrel seal activator on the 1187 20 ga. should be removed or not when shooting magnum loads. The manual says nothing about it for the 20 ga. So my question: was the 1187 20 ga. designed to shoot magnum shells (3” or 2 ¾” mags) with the activator installed?
Would it hurt the gun to remove the activator? My action is well broken in and will eject even light loads 8-10 from the gun. I would like it to eject shells closer to the gun and thought that removing the activator might reduce bolt velocity a bit.
I would appreciate if an engineer would respond the my questions or at least review the answer from tech support."
Here is the reply Remignton's tech support: "The barrel seal activator should only be used with low brass shells. The "rule of thumb" is basically to use it only when the gun will not cycle. Thanks,"
My further question is that if this is the case why does the manual say nothing about it. Does anyone on this form have thoughts on this?
And while I agree that Remington needs to address and revise their owners manual or at least send a revised attachment to those who have registered a 20 gauge gun with them. The statement in the manual regarding removal of the actuator for the Supermag 11-87 should clearly send up a red flag question to any 20 guage owners who are thinking of using the gun for 3" loads since their gun uses the same part.
Also, I finally spoke with a tech rep who was on the ball and understood exactly what my problem was, who told me that the activator should absolutely be removed when shooting heavy loads, he even said "it's in the manual", though I pointed out that the manual only makes that recommendation for the 12-ga Super Mag, not the 20, and he agreed that it was unclear and needed to be amended.
Thanks,