Second year production 870 (1951) vs. later 870 - key differences explained.

[Claven2]

Can you guys please share a pic of one of these banned barrels. I would love to see one since I never have in my travels with 870's
Cheers

Banned?

I typed BANDED. In other words, the barrel extension with the locking recess is a separate threaded collar with the barrel screwed into it, like a rifle barrel. Early guns have a really pronounced "band" look where the barrel meets the receiver for this reason - go look at your 1950 and you'll see what I mean (assuming it still has an early barrel on it?). Bands first got smaller/shorter and later, Remington started making the barrel and barrel extension as one piece.

Evidently they did this because they had a supply of un-used model 31 barrel blanks and they did not have enough "meat" on the end to machine a barrel extension into the blanks. So they made them "banded" until they used up those blanks, then switched to the later designs.

I'm about to catch a flight, but will post photos of one when I get back, unless someone beats me to it?

 

[3macs1]

Banned?

I typed BANDED. In other words, the barrel extension with the locking recess is a separate threaded collar with the barrel screwed into it, like a rifle barrel. Early guns have a really pronounced "band" look where the barrel meets the receiver for this reason - go look at your 1950 and you'll see what I mean (assuming it still has an early barrel on it?). Bands first got smaller/shorter and later, Remington started making the barrel and barrel extension as one piece.

Evidently they did this because they had a supply of un-used model 31 barrel blanks and they did not have enough "meat" on the end to machine a barrel extension into the blanks. So they made them "banded" until they used up those blanks, then switched to the later designs.

I'm about to catch a flight, but will post photos of one when I get back, unless someone beats me to it?

Thanks for the response.OK I made a typo sorry. I thought so like the pics I posted on that 1951 you refer to the "LOOK" and I understand now what you are referring to. But that is really not a banded barrel at least in remington terms or anything I have ever read or been told. Early 870 wingmasters had a barrel ring , some will say sleeve/ collar on the end of a threaded stud end that ran for many years some say right to 1960. This is a 31 barrel band off a 31 banded barrel which I have never seen on a wingmaster
Thanks for the clarification

Cheers

 

[red_bailey]

Yeah, it's not a band (that's why I put it in quotes). There is a step where the long pipe-like part of the barrel attaches to the short block with the tang that locks into the receiver. A bit of it extends past the receiver, which creates the illusion of a band when the gun is assembled. I would prefer to call it a stepped barrel, or screwed into stub barrel, or separate tang barrel, but it seems others have chosen banded barrel.

The inertia of incorrect information on the internet astounds. Go on the 870 Wikipedia page and change the date to 1950, I bet someone will change it right back, citing Remington's own site which in-explicably has always insisted on '51!

 

[3macs1]

Yeah, it's not a band (that's why I put it in quotes). There is a step where the long pipe-like part of the barrel attaches to the short block with the tang that locks into the receiver. A bit of it extends past the receiver, which creates the illusion of a band when the gun is assembled. I would prefer to call it a stepped barrel, or screwed into stub barrel, or separate tang barrel, but it seems others have chosen banded barrel.

The inertia of incorrect information on the internet astounds. Go on the 870 Wikipedia page and change the date to 1950, I bet someone will change it right back, citing Remington's own site which in-explicably has always insisted on '51!

Yes a word here or there screws up some of us old guys
As far as the date like I say to those that think it is 51 why would remington stop making the 31 in late 49 if they had no pump to sell and why would it take 13 months to retool where as 1 month would do it. The use of the 31 barrels is another myth. It was different in the model 29 to 31 model years using old parts since they were real poor years for remington and they didnot have the coin invested into those as they did the new wingmaster. Trying to get the public to buy into a totally new design and sell it with a dog f'ked old left over 31 modified barrels I don't think so. Not to mention they kept that original ring design until almost 61 so there must have been a hell of a lot of old 31 barrels.
Regardless they are a hell of a gun and few if any models being made today will still be around in 50 to 60 years and sought after like the wingmaster still is. Only mistake they made IMO with the 870 is calling the cheaper expess a 870. That hurt wingmasters reputation more than anything especially since there is still owners that think a 870 is an 870 .
I kick my ass for how many I didnot buy for like 100 bucks and not too long ago either
Take care

 

[Claven2]

I honestly cannot confirm from a primary source re the use of model 31 barrels, but I am a mechanical engineer with a manufacturing background, so I'll offer the following explanation:

It does not matter how many model 31 blanks were re-purposed. Remington would have use available 31 blanks when they prototyped and tooled up for the 870. Their gauges and fixtures would have existed to use the older blanks and they would have toiled up to make the threaded extensions. Once that tooling and line was made and set up, even after running out of blanks, they likely continued making them that way until there was a good reason to switch. The added expense to breach up the barrels made sense over re-tooling as long as labor was low-cost and volume reasonably low. At some point they would have decided the design change advantages in reduced skilled labor outweighed the cost to re-tool.

The rest is history and today all barrels are "one piece" in the breach area.

 

[3macs1]

I honestly cannot confirm from a primary source re the use of model 31 barrels, but I am a mechanical engineer with a manufacturing background, so I'll offer the following explanation:

It does not matter how many model 31 blanks were re-purposed. Remington would have use available 31 blanks when they prototyped and tooled up for the 870. Their gauges and fixtures would have existed to use the older blanks and they would have toiled up to make the threaded extensions. Once that tooling and line was made and set up, even after running out of blanks, they likely continued making them that way until there was a good reason to switch. The added expense to breach up the barrels made sense over re-tooling as long as labor was low-cost and volume reasonably low. At some point they would have decided the design change advantages in reduced skilled labor outweighed the cost to re-tool.

The rest is history and today all barrels are "one piece" in the breach area.

Sorry I almost fell off the chair. When all else fails push the education LOL what is with people today that they have to do this . I am an engineer so I know and the rest of you are plain stupid so listen here . Crap is what it is and you know it
Anyway you think you are the only one here that has that little pinky ring
Well having worked directly in an mechanical engineering dept for almost 25 years I will share what my boss would say to your comment and he was the smartest mechanical engineer I have ever worked under or with
One is university doesn't make you smart or successful in life ask Bill Gates who was a drop out and two if mechanical engineers think they are so smart why do we need millwrights and mechanics etc to keep going behind our designs to fix them or keep them running. Think about that one I know I have for years

You show me a remington document or equivalent where they used old left over model 31 barrels on a almost million dollar project in 1949 then I will believe it not because of your theory, education or past manufacturing experience. That might work with some but not this dude. You read it on the internet and I can even show you where if you like. Doesn't bother me to be proven wrong. If you listen to mama that is about 4 or 5 times a day

Any how I am done with the old 870 discussions. After you buy the remington shop manual for the 870 then pick up the history of remington firearms it is good reading and accurate. You think I pulled those dates I quoted earlier out of my head NOT
That is if it matters to you to share fact or internet fiction to members
Cheers
Sorry but I am still shaking my head a mechanical engineer dropping the education card in an attempt to try and win a silly little debate we are having but then again I don't know any that are and I quote a Bad Mutha F....R . Man have times changed and not for the better IMO but what do I know or why should I care.What ever happened to and you know the rest
I am an Engineer.
In my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn obligations. etc etc

 

[Claven2]

Umm, I'm not sure how to respond to your post? I read it as a personal attack on my character and my profession. I'm actually tremendously offended and trying to remain restrained as I type this.

I'm not flounting education, only offering an explanation for an oft repeated "truth". The net and books are full of statements on the 31 barrels and I'm trying to explain the possibility?

I gunuinely do have a manufacturing background and am offering what I consider a logical hypothesis based upon my own experiences. I would ask that you re-read my post. I specifically noted I had no documentation or evidence. Only what is written and repeated on the subject in more than one source.

I'm sorry you are so offended by my post. It was not made maliciously?!?

Next time I consider posting on anything, I'll give my head a shake and go have a beer instead. Clearly others should be posting in my stead, people that never offend or stir others to making attacks.

 

[3macs1]

Umm, I'm not sure how to respond to your post? I'm not flounting education, only offering an explanation for an oft repeated "truth". The net and books are full of statements on the 31 barrels and I'm trying to explain the possibility?

I gunuinely do have a manufacturing background and am offering what I consider a logical hypothesis based upon my own experiences.

I'm sorry you are so offended by my post. It was not made maliciously?!?

Well you sure fooled me and it is not something I am familiar with seeing from engineers. Any how . Internet yes books I have never seen it . If it exists I would love to see it in a book or literature
You are offering your hypothesis which is all it is but no fact just assumptions and based on todays manufacturing processes not 1949

Ok just look at the approx 1 million investment in 1949 which for giggles would be around 9-10 million today with inflation
Want manufacturing company would start production with modified parts for sale to the public ( internal proto types sure/ maybe ) in one of the biggest launches of a new product they have even done with a failure would have clearly closed the doors since other manufacturers were chewing up the pump gun business in those days
Yes they did it with 29 barrels on 31's but very few and not for almost 10 years which is how long that ring can be seen on 870's
Also why would they even look at the money losing being phased out model 31 for anything when the preliminary design criteria the four engineers were given was to try and utilize the design and or components of the successful 11-48 as much as possible
In the end you believe what you want and I will do the same not like it makes any difference in 2016
Cheers

 

[Claven2]

I don't have any evidence. I stated that up front. But I see repurposed older parts every day. I play guitar and yesterday was rebuilding a wah pedal circuit to make some changes (it's a hobby).

In researching the circuit before drawing it out to redesign it, my pedal should not have left the factory that way. It had parts from 2 generations earlier and used a much earlier pcb blank that it should have. Why? Because the manufacturer needed to use up some old parts and it did not change performance.

I collected enfields for years. Same story. You often see older parts re-worked and thrown back onto the production line. Mosins- same thing. I had a 1944 m44 with a 1917 dated receiver re-manufactured and re-used in production.

Ithaca m37 shotguns. Early mag caps ended in 1949 if you believe most sources. I have a 1951 with the early cap. Stuff happens.

Check out the Remington model 30 rifle. Remington made some of these from surplus receiver forgings they modified and re-purposed.

There are lots of examples of companies switching product offerings but re-using stocks of parts where possible. You may find this hard to believe. Others in corporate settings find it equally hard to dispose of good parts than can be made "fit to purpose" and save $$.

Proof? No. Plausible? I believe so. Again , not an argument or proof. Only an opinion freely offered.

 

[VLT79]

With the Model 31 costing too much money to make and loosing sales to other companies offerings, one would assume Remington was not foolish enough to have made a few 10 thousand extra blanks knowning full well that it was going to be replaced. At any one point in the production of the M31, it is highly doubtful that there was ever more than a few hundred to maybe one thousand extras of any one single major part. Barrels are not interchangeable between guns without some fitting so having extras for aftermarket "replacement", like those of the 870, was not a major concern. Why were the first 870 barrel extensions threaded on? Common sense would indicate that it's more likely due to the technology of the day. Most if not all other manufacturers used the same process. Matter of fact Winchester was still screwing barrel extensions on to the barrels of most of their shotguns up until the 90's

 

[Claven2]

I edited the initial post to add a couple pics of the typical early barrel physical features. Sorry it took so long, but I finally got around to it.

 

[Claven2]

With the Model 31 costing too much money to make and loosing sales to other companies offerings, one would assume Remington was not foolish enough to have made a few 10 thousand extra blanks knowning full well that it was going to be replaced. At any one point in the production of the M31, it is highly doubtful that there was ever more than a few hundred to maybe one thousand extras of any one single major part. Barrels are not interchangeable between guns without some fitting so having extras for aftermarket "replacement", like those of the 870, was not a major concern. Why were the first 870 barrel extensions threaded on? Common sense would indicate that it's more likely due to the technology of the day. Most if not all other manufacturers used the same process. Matter of fact Winchester was still screwing barrel extensions on to the barrels of most of their shotguns up until the 90's

The more I think about it, Remington made several shotgun designs around that time (late 40's into the mid-1950's). They made the model 31, the 870, Sportsman 58, The Model 11 (an Auto 5 clone), and probably one or two other shotgun designs I'm forgetting. I think they all employ a threaded end with either an extension screwed on, or the barrels thread into the receiver itself.

Chances are, their barrel blanks all started as similar stock before being machined into whatever they needed to make at the time. I don't know this for fact, but they probably got all their barrel stock from a small number of suppliers using similar or even identical specs that allowed enough "extra" that they could be made into whatever was needed.

Just speculation, but sounds reasonable to me from a logistics perspective.

 

[3macs1]

The more I think about it, Remington made several shotgun designs around that time (late 40's into the mid-1950's). They made the model 31, the 870, Sportsman 58, The Model 11 (an Auto 5 clone), and probably one or two other shotgun designs I'm forgetting. I think they all employ a threaded end with either an extension screwed on, or the barrels thread into the receiver itself.

Chances are, their barrel blanks all started as similar stock before being machined into whatever they needed to make at the time. I don't know this for fact, but they probably got all their barrel stock from a small number of suppliers using similar or even identical specs that allowed enough "extra" that they could be made into whatever was needed.

Just speculation, but sounds reasonable to me from a logistics perspective.

I like it and that would make sense on raw stock vs using already made 31 barrels

Here is one for fact you don't invest 1 million dollars in 1949 which was huge money on a new designed shotgun project that would probaly close your company if it failed and release your first offerings to the public with old 31 barrels and modify on them with adapter collars to fit your new 870
Think just about that
31's did use a few modified 29 barrels initially but 870's had their own barrel from the start
Cheers

 

[Deerdr]

Obviously two very talented men "duelling" here. I love 870s have several older ones, and am very thankful for the information I learned. Respectfully. Jim

 

[3macs1]

Obviously two very talented men "duelling" here. I love 870s have several older ones, and am very thankful for the information I learned. Respectfully. Jim

If I am one you are referring to NOPE just an old dude that has fell into some strange state of lust with wingmasters since the mid 60's Still have I think what some would think to be quite a collection but never enough
Wish the god I could remember 1/4 of the stuff my old man showed me when he ran a small gun shop and worked part time as a smith in the 50's-70's
He told me time and time again to pay attention but of course being young I knew it all and brushed him off
Cheers

 

[Claven2]

Duelling is a bit harsh...

I just hope some folks find the pictures in the initial post informative. The very early 870's (first few years) are uncommon enough and have some interesting "features" compared to the later offerings.