1100 vs. 1187

[Oldnamvet]

For someone who only uses it for clays, is there any real difference between the 1100 and the 1187? I only use 2 3/4" shells so having the 3" capability is a non-issue for me. This will be a rarity for me -- possibly buying a NEW gun. I do that about every 20 years or so. Wood and blued metal, no parkerizing or synthetic stocks.

 

[Milkmaster]

I'd stay with the 1100 and get one that is for 2 3/4" only. That way the recoil with the lighter shells used for trap and skeet will cycle every time without fail. That is the setup for the Classic Trap I own and the field gun I also own. While they may be available, I have not seen an 1187 in 2 3/4" chamber only. I just checked the Remington website. All 1187's listed are at least a 3" chamber with some accepting 3.5" shells.

 

[sm]

Oldnamvet,
Between a 1100 or 11-87

1100

Remember the PMs we shared not long ago?

Still you need to find a older Beretta 303 or SX1

 

[Oldnamvet]

Just wanted to re-check. The local dealer clerk was making all kinds of claims that the 1187 is the "improved" 1100, the 1100 is finicky and jams, the 1187 gas management system is superior,etc. Rather than telling him he was an idiot, I asked why the 1100 is still being sold if it is so inferior. He started blustering some non-sequitors so I just walked out. They didn't have any 1100s on the rack, just a couple of 1187s. Might have something to do with it. I only buy used there since they are overpriced on new guns but it is the closest place to actually see anything.

 

[Milkmaster]

I don't think a jam-o-matic type shotgun would be the largest selling semi-auto since its inception in the 60's. The 1187 just never saw the success of the 1100, so Remington brought back the 1100. Read the FAQ at Rremington's website. They seem to push the 1187 for heavy loads and the 1100 for light loads etc. I wipe down the gas tube with a rag after I am through shooting and perform a good cleaning occasionally. Never had a problem for me.

The deal is with the gas ports on the barrel. The light loads need larger gas ports for cycling the action. The heavy loads have smaller or only one port. Some of the units that are set up for heavy 3 or 3.5" loads don't like to cycle with the 2 3/4" shells. I haven't personally performed the fix, but have been told about guys drilling out the holes to make the 1187 cycle light loads properly. I say buy the 1100 already set up for the light loads. Thereby exactly why I buy the 1100 with 2 3/4" only chambers on them. Then no problem!

Then you have the Benelli / Baretta crowd who swear by their guns. All are good firearms and are a little different. I think of it like Ford and Chevy. Sometimes a little different way of doing the same thing.

 

[johnmcl]

Old,

To answer directly I do not think you can make a bad choice between an 11-87 and an 1100 for sporting clays.

There are more 1100's on the clay tournament circuit than you'd care to think about. I consider heavy use by professionals and advanced shooters to be a ringing endorsement.

I've got an 11-87 Premier which was discontinued in favor of the 1100 G3. The gun works just fine with 2 /34" shells. In fact, I could not find a brand of target shells with which it wouldn't work fine. I've had one FTE across a couple of thousand shells. The extra large extractor and the improved gas systems contributes to its reliability I assert. I have no fear on the logistics side as many camo 11-87's remain in the Remington line.

With two similarly equipped 1100 and 11-87 guns from which to choose, I'd let price be the deciding factor.

Let us know what you decide,

John