I looked for this info on the 'net and could barely find any, so I figured I would share for those who might have an interest in such things. Remington introduced the Model 870 in 1950 (some sources report 1951, but apparently 1950 examples exist as well) as a less expensive (to produce) alternative to the Model 31 so they could better compete with the "hammerless" Winchester model 12, which was king of sales at the time. From 195o through to middle of 1953, Remington 870's were made to a different pattern than the late 1953 870 shotguns, all the way up until the Express was introduced in 1987. There are also minor differences between 1954 and 1987 besides barrel patterns, but not as contrasting as the ones I show here.
Some posters responding to this thread point out the early guns had other transitional changes, so if anyone has pictures of those, I'd LOVE to see some! My sample size for disassembly of the very early guns is low (standing at TWO) as of 02-06-2016.
I had an XX coded Wingmaster arrive on the bench this week for an external restoration. It's pretty tired on the outside (i.e. bluing almost gone, light pitting, dings, and the wood finish at about 0% (not cracks or splits). Otherwise, it's mechanically excellent with a clean bore. As it happens, I also have a 1974 Wingmaster also being restored in the shop at the same time, so I thought I would take comparative pics to point out the differences since many people will never see the insides of these guns side by side.
First of all, they are NOT 100% INTERCHANGEABLE. This is not a well known fact (!), but the earliest Wingmasters ARE different, most noticeable in how the bolt locks into the barrel extension. You can swap whole assemblies between receivers but, for example, an early bolt body has to be mated to an early locking bolt.
I don't have both barrels with me today, but when I do later this week, I'll post differences are as well. Obviously LOTS of barrel variations exist, the differences I'm talking about are all in how they attach to the receiver and in the magazine ring. The barrel differences can be seen on the outside of the guns, so people are more familiar with the early "banded" barrels vs. the later one-piece barrels than with the internal differences I'm trying to show here.
So... let's start with the bolt assemblies. Unless otherwise stated, the 1951 part is always on the LEFT.
Here is the first photo. Right away we see some differences. The most obvious is that the firing pin is MUCH longer and protrudes out the back of the bolt an extra 1/8" over a later bolt. Also, because the early bolt mated to an early barrel with a threaded-on extension, a relief cut was added to the top of the bolt just above the extractor to reduce the chances of interference with an early 870 barrel. You may also notice the forged and milled extractor is smaller in profile than the later extractor shape that is still used today as the "police extractor".
Now we compare the undersides. Something is REALLY different here. In 1953, Remington switched to a captive locking bolt. On the early guns, this part just falls out when a bolt assembly is turned upside down outside the shotgun. Also, the relief cut that allows the cartridge elevator to fully depress on a closed bolt (for loading) is a huge woodrough cutter relief vs the later "slit". The relief cut to remove a pinned captive locking bolt is also absent on an early bolt. You can install an early locking bolt into a later bolt assembly, but the reverse is NOT POSSIBLE (i.e. they are not interchangeable). On the early bolt, the only reason to remove the firing pin retainer pin would be to replace the firing pin. On a later bolt, you need to remove it to take apart the locking bolt assembly. Lastly, early bolts are polished nickel steel. After 1953*, they started to hard chrome them.
*Not 100% certain if 1953 is the cutoff for nickel steel vs. chrome, so if anyone knows better, please advise.
Let's look at bolt carriers next.
Early carriers are milled from a solid forging. Later in production, they were made from a forged top piece being pinned and brazed to a cheaply stamped-out base. You can clearly see the rivets/pins, but they are copper-brazed as well. The relief cut of the spring-loaded elevator arm is a milled slot on the early carrier, while on the later one, it's a hole from when the base was stamped out in a die. The "ramps" that engage the slide arms are large milled surfaces on the early unit, on the later one, they are much narrower, presumably to prolong too life by cutting only the minimally required area on the part. The later part is also made shorted by flattening the back end, probably so more could be stamped from the same sheet of steel.
The top of the same part show other differences. Notably, the locking bolt engagement "hump" was almost doubled in length on the later version.
It's worth noting that the early guns were rust blued and the later guns are caustically hot-dipped. Early guns' interior surfaces are in the white, but they took the time to rust blue the carrier.
The trigger plates (i.e. trigger groups) are remarkably similar, but the very earliest ones were made by Alcoa, while later production ones are marked by a variety of sub-contractors. Presumably Remington shopped the dies around to whichever aluminum foundry gave the best prices over time. All the pre-Express groups are cast, unlike the current aluminum units that are MIM.
Alcoa early plate:
A 1974 unit made by a foundry with a "DJ" mark in a circle. Not sure who they are. Like the bolts, before 1953*, the elevators are polished nickel steel. The 1974 elevator is nickel plated (or possibly chromed?).
*Not 100% certain if 1953 is the cutoff for nickel steel vs. chrome, so if anyone knows better, please advise.
This next one is a bit trivial. The early magazine spring retainer is smooth, but they had a tendency to get bent or to warp during removal/install. At some point before 1974, they added some relief cuts to the stamping dies so it could flex more without being and taking a "set".
Here's one I found funny. In the early 1950's, Remington offered (as standard) what is today the most popular upgrade for an 870 - a proper anti-tilt follower. These early ones are lathe-turned units with minimal bearing surface bands so they would run smooth. The do not ever tilt and are utterly reliable. A typical 1974 era hard plastic follower is to the right. I hate these and always replace them with an aftermarket follower so they work more like a 1951 gun does
Many early Wingmaster slides came with trim little corn cob forestocks, but the earliest ones are more cylindrical in profile, like on a Model 31, later ones are more football shaped. The retainer nut for these was much shorter and you need a special tool to remove them because the castellations sit below flush with the end of the slide tube. Most 870 stock nut tools will not remove these early nuts.
Note: I don't know if the non-corn cop stocks used a taller nut on the early guns, I've not seen one to verify.
Let's look at the ejection ports. The early port required TWO machine operations to cut, first they cut the opening perpendicular to the receiver flat, then the receiver was placed in another fixture upright and an end mill cut a relief along the top of the ejection port so users would not jam their fingers if they had to clear a stovepipe. This extra milling operation was eliminated early on to save $$.
Early:
Late:
You will also notice that the late ejector has a shoulder that kicks the shell out of the receiver when the base of the hull hits it (this one is converted to 3", but the same principle applies). The 1950-1953 ejector does not have this shoulder. They eject a little weaker and ejection happens when the base of the hull hits the notch in the spring, not a shoulder on the ejector.
Another minor receiver difference is found where the magazine is brazed into the receiver. The early receiver "shelf" atop the magazine has a raised portion to minimize the surface area where the bolt carrier contacts it, making for a slightly smoother feel. The later receiver is flat across the whole shelf, which is a cheaper approach. Practically it makes no difference IMHO.
Early:
Late:
That's about it for now. More to follow on barrels later.
EDIT: Input incorporated from 3macs1.
Another EDIT:
I added pictures of an early Wingmaster barrel.
Picture 1: Here we see that the barrel extension is not part of the barrel, but rather, is a threaded collar fitted to the back of the barrel:
At some point (not sure if year) early on, Remington switched to one-piece barrels.
Another feature they dropped... Early on Remington machined the brazed-on barrel collars such that the "ring" is wider then the post where it's brazed to the barrel. On later guns, the post is the same width as the collar, presumably to cut down on machining (which cost money).
Further Edit:
Here is a complete 1951 Wingmaster photo. This variant has the cylindrical corn cob type grip and a plain un-checkered walnut butt, though the wood is nice with a good degree of figure.
Here we see the early (smaller) Wingmaster roll stamp on the receiver. Notice it is low, set between the trigger plate pins. On later guns, this is styled differently, and is higher up on the receiver, stamped in-line with the Remington logo.
Here we see the early Remington logo, surmounting the serial number. The serial number has had the last few digits blurred out. This roll mark is a bit light, as the receiver was re-blued, but it was not much more strongly stamped before I re-blued the gun. I was not able to get all the micro-pits out of the receiver flat, or I would have erased the Remington logo and serial number (not good), so I just chemically cleaned the remaining pits and re-blued it as you see it now. These early roll stamps were NOT deeply struck, and are lower on the receiver than on later guns.
Here we see the XX barrel code (1951):
Here is the early barrel roll stamp. (Note this is a 16 gauge, but the 12 gauge stamp is otherwise identical).
Some posters responding to this thread point out the early guns had other transitional changes, so if anyone has pictures of those, I'd LOVE to see some! My sample size for disassembly of the very early guns is low (standing at TWO) as of 02-06-2016.
I had an XX coded Wingmaster arrive on the bench this week for an external restoration. It's pretty tired on the outside (i.e. bluing almost gone, light pitting, dings, and the wood finish at about 0% (not cracks or splits). Otherwise, it's mechanically excellent with a clean bore. As it happens, I also have a 1974 Wingmaster also being restored in the shop at the same time, so I thought I would take comparative pics to point out the differences since many people will never see the insides of these guns side by side.
First of all, they are NOT 100% INTERCHANGEABLE. This is not a well known fact (!), but the earliest Wingmasters ARE different, most noticeable in how the bolt locks into the barrel extension. You can swap whole assemblies between receivers but, for example, an early bolt body has to be mated to an early locking bolt.
I don't have both barrels with me today, but when I do later this week, I'll post differences are as well. Obviously LOTS of barrel variations exist, the differences I'm talking about are all in how they attach to the receiver and in the magazine ring. The barrel differences can be seen on the outside of the guns, so people are more familiar with the early "banded" barrels vs. the later one-piece barrels than with the internal differences I'm trying to show here.
So... let's start with the bolt assemblies. Unless otherwise stated, the 1951 part is always on the LEFT.
Here is the first photo. Right away we see some differences. The most obvious is that the firing pin is MUCH longer and protrudes out the back of the bolt an extra 1/8" over a later bolt. Also, because the early bolt mated to an early barrel with a threaded-on extension, a relief cut was added to the top of the bolt just above the extractor to reduce the chances of interference with an early 870 barrel. You may also notice the forged and milled extractor is smaller in profile than the later extractor shape that is still used today as the "police extractor".
Now we compare the undersides. Something is REALLY different here. In 1953, Remington switched to a captive locking bolt. On the early guns, this part just falls out when a bolt assembly is turned upside down outside the shotgun. Also, the relief cut that allows the cartridge elevator to fully depress on a closed bolt (for loading) is a huge woodrough cutter relief vs the later "slit". The relief cut to remove a pinned captive locking bolt is also absent on an early bolt. You can install an early locking bolt into a later bolt assembly, but the reverse is NOT POSSIBLE (i.e. they are not interchangeable). On the early bolt, the only reason to remove the firing pin retainer pin would be to replace the firing pin. On a later bolt, you need to remove it to take apart the locking bolt assembly. Lastly, early bolts are polished nickel steel. After 1953*, they started to hard chrome them.
*Not 100% certain if 1953 is the cutoff for nickel steel vs. chrome, so if anyone knows better, please advise.
Let's look at bolt carriers next.
Early carriers are milled from a solid forging. Later in production, they were made from a forged top piece being pinned and brazed to a cheaply stamped-out base. You can clearly see the rivets/pins, but they are copper-brazed as well. The relief cut of the spring-loaded elevator arm is a milled slot on the early carrier, while on the later one, it's a hole from when the base was stamped out in a die. The "ramps" that engage the slide arms are large milled surfaces on the early unit, on the later one, they are much narrower, presumably to prolong too life by cutting only the minimally required area on the part. The later part is also made shorted by flattening the back end, probably so more could be stamped from the same sheet of steel.
The top of the same part show other differences. Notably, the locking bolt engagement "hump" was almost doubled in length on the later version.
It's worth noting that the early guns were rust blued and the later guns are caustically hot-dipped. Early guns' interior surfaces are in the white, but they took the time to rust blue the carrier.
The trigger plates (i.e. trigger groups) are remarkably similar, but the very earliest ones were made by Alcoa, while later production ones are marked by a variety of sub-contractors. Presumably Remington shopped the dies around to whichever aluminum foundry gave the best prices over time. All the pre-Express groups are cast, unlike the current aluminum units that are MIM.
Alcoa early plate:
A 1974 unit made by a foundry with a "DJ" mark in a circle. Not sure who they are. Like the bolts, before 1953*, the elevators are polished nickel steel. The 1974 elevator is nickel plated (or possibly chromed?).
*Not 100% certain if 1953 is the cutoff for nickel steel vs. chrome, so if anyone knows better, please advise.
This next one is a bit trivial. The early magazine spring retainer is smooth, but they had a tendency to get bent or to warp during removal/install. At some point before 1974, they added some relief cuts to the stamping dies so it could flex more without being and taking a "set".
Here's one I found funny. In the early 1950's, Remington offered (as standard) what is today the most popular upgrade for an 870 - a proper anti-tilt follower. These early ones are lathe-turned units with minimal bearing surface bands so they would run smooth. The do not ever tilt and are utterly reliable. A typical 1974 era hard plastic follower is to the right. I hate these and always replace them with an aftermarket follower so they work more like a 1951 gun does
Many early Wingmaster slides came with trim little corn cob forestocks, but the earliest ones are more cylindrical in profile, like on a Model 31, later ones are more football shaped. The retainer nut for these was much shorter and you need a special tool to remove them because the castellations sit below flush with the end of the slide tube. Most 870 stock nut tools will not remove these early nuts.
Note: I don't know if the non-corn cop stocks used a taller nut on the early guns, I've not seen one to verify.
Let's look at the ejection ports. The early port required TWO machine operations to cut, first they cut the opening perpendicular to the receiver flat, then the receiver was placed in another fixture upright and an end mill cut a relief along the top of the ejection port so users would not jam their fingers if they had to clear a stovepipe. This extra milling operation was eliminated early on to save $$.
Early:
Late:
You will also notice that the late ejector has a shoulder that kicks the shell out of the receiver when the base of the hull hits it (this one is converted to 3", but the same principle applies). The 1950-1953 ejector does not have this shoulder. They eject a little weaker and ejection happens when the base of the hull hits the notch in the spring, not a shoulder on the ejector.
Another minor receiver difference is found where the magazine is brazed into the receiver. The early receiver "shelf" atop the magazine has a raised portion to minimize the surface area where the bolt carrier contacts it, making for a slightly smoother feel. The later receiver is flat across the whole shelf, which is a cheaper approach. Practically it makes no difference IMHO.
Early:
Late:
That's about it for now. More to follow on barrels later.
EDIT: Input incorporated from 3macs1.
Another EDIT:
I added pictures of an early Wingmaster barrel.
Picture 1: Here we see that the barrel extension is not part of the barrel, but rather, is a threaded collar fitted to the back of the barrel:
At some point (not sure if year) early on, Remington switched to one-piece barrels.
Another feature they dropped... Early on Remington machined the brazed-on barrel collars such that the "ring" is wider then the post where it's brazed to the barrel. On later guns, the post is the same width as the collar, presumably to cut down on machining (which cost money).
Further Edit:
Here is a complete 1951 Wingmaster photo. This variant has the cylindrical corn cob type grip and a plain un-checkered walnut butt, though the wood is nice with a good degree of figure.
Here we see the early (smaller) Wingmaster roll stamp on the receiver. Notice it is low, set between the trigger plate pins. On later guns, this is styled differently, and is higher up on the receiver, stamped in-line with the Remington logo.
Here we see the early Remington logo, surmounting the serial number. The serial number has had the last few digits blurred out. This roll mark is a bit light, as the receiver was re-blued, but it was not much more strongly stamped before I re-blued the gun. I was not able to get all the micro-pits out of the receiver flat, or I would have erased the Remington logo and serial number (not good), so I just chemically cleaned the remaining pits and re-blued it as you see it now. These early roll stamps were NOT deeply struck, and are lower on the receiver than on later guns.
Here we see the XX barrel code (1951):
Here is the early barrel roll stamp. (Note this is a 16 gauge, but the 12 gauge stamp is otherwise identical).
Last edited:
