Firing 3" Shells from 2 3/4 barrel (Remington 1100)

tjhaile said:
The ejector is attached to the barrel extension on an 1100, rather than being riveted into the receiver like an 870. 1100 receivers are identical for either shell length.
Click to expand...

Ha I must not have looked that closely when I owned my 1100. I wrongly assumed the ejector setups were the same as the 870.
 
Suther said:
PSI is PSI, sure. But when different methods are used to measure that psi you can't expect them to be equal.

Of course, you could provide one real world example of when a 556 caused a problem in a 223 rifle...

These warnings you speak of are from the lawyers. Companies covering their own asses. That's it. No different than companies saying don't use reloads in their gun - lawyers covering their arses not a warning against potentially deadly consequences.
Click to expand...

The warnings are also from SAAMI! They state that it is a unsafe combination. They are the Pro's that set the standards.
 
Ganderite said:
Yes. It is graphic and memorable. It will be a longtime before anyone who saw that picture will forget.

The poor guy did something stupid and paid for it. It would be tragic if we did not learn from it.

The lesson - BE CAREFUL WHEN SETTING OFF HIGH PRESSURE EVENTS NEXT TO YOUR FACE."
Click to expand...

Why oh why do I get the feeling I missed out
 
Ganderite said:
Yes. It is graphic and memorable. It will be a longtime before anyone who saw that picture will forget.

The poor guy did something stupid and paid for it. It would be tragic if we did not learn from it.

The lesson - BE CAREFUL WHEN SETTING OFF HIGH PRESSURE EVENTS NEXT TO YOUR FACE."
Click to expand...

Too bad picture has been removed because couple of girls wet their panties, and I missed seeing it...
 
Curly1 said:
So you are ok with 62,366 psi loads in a rifle designed for 55,000 psi? Like the 3" in a 2 3/4" barrel, it's another episode of a 1000 ways to die.
Click to expand...

So you think a manufacturer when they change from a 223 to a 5.56 changes their whole process, at a high cost, when they could just change the stamp, with a minimum of cost. Everything pretty much stays the same, I worked as a millwright for 30 years in manufacturing companies do thing as cheap as possible, and downtime is expensive
 
spooksar said:
So you think a manufacturer when they change from a 223 to a 5.56 changes their whole process, at a high cost, when they could just change the stamp, with a minimum of cost. Everything pretty much stays the same, I worked as a millwright for 30 years in manufacturing companies do thing as cheap as possible, and downtime is expensive
Click to expand...

5.56 and 223 have different spec, are you are suggesting that the 5.56, built primarily for the military under contract, is built to a lower spec or the 223 is hot? Either way the manufacturer has a legal issue imho. Just saying it's a little different with ammo then some widget for the average consumer that wouldn't know the difference.
 
lanis said:
Too bad picture has been removed because couple of girls wet their panties, and I missed seeing it...
Click to expand...

Nice .. hardly a matter of pant wetting or feminine tendencies, the forum dictates that a warning be posted on a thread containing graphic pictures and there was none. I did not appreciate coming across it before I left for lunch. Pretty straight forward and the picture could have stayed had the OP or a moderator taken that route.

Lanis you don't me so why the name calling (also against forum guidelines) and disrespect? We have more in common than not yet you take this route? I'm sure all the female gunnutz on this site also appreciate your view ... as I said .. nice.
 
TPK said:
Nice .. hardly a matter of pant wetting or feminine tendencies, the forum dictates that a warning be posted on a thread containing graphic pictures and there was none. I did not appreciate coming across it before I left for lunch. Pretty straight forward and the picture could have stayed had the OP or a moderator taken that route.

Lanis you don't me so why the name calling (also against forum guidelines) and disrespect? We have more in common than not yet you take this route? I'm sure all the female gunnutz on this site also appreciate your view ... as I said .. nice.
Click to expand...

This post is worthy of Reddit or Facef##*book...
Thank you for standing up for all the oppressed females here on CGN. You deserve a medal for such bravery and selflessness unfortunately with all the heroes whine posting around here we seem to have run out of them...Wait did I say whine ? I meant vine...
 
I was asked to help edit the first edition of the proposed text book for the FAC course. The book was written by 2 guys who had never fired a gun - and it showed.

It included a warning of not shooting a 3" in a 2.75" chamber, but had no explanation. I recall writing a suggested version that explained that a 3" shell measures 2.75" before shooting and that the shell measures 3" only after shooting. I think there was supposed to be a diagram showing that the 3" shell could not open properly in a 2.75" chamber.

It was a frustrating experience. The first draft included such gems as the 303 Brit was a 30 cal introduced in 1903.

I have not seen a recent version of the text.
 
Last edited:
Recent edition of the textbook hasn't changed much from the last one, they still show the same picture of the correct and incorrect loading. Hunter Education Tools (HET) has some great animations depicting the issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom