The Chinese Have Landed...

[Fred Fuller]

...at Casa Lapin, anyway.

My latest visit to my favorite FFL (Ace Pawn Shop, 5721 Bragg Blvd, Fayetteville, NC) netted a back seat full o' pump shotguns yesterday. I had been waiting for a bit till everything showed up to pick everything up on one trip, and yesterday was the day. Plus the Volkswagen needed an oil change and was due an inspection, so I got to run several errands on one trip.

There were two transfers - a Hawk 981 and a H&R Pardner Pump, both very slightly used (can't really tell either from new) via Gunbroker. The last was a special order Winchester '97 repro from IAC ( http://www.iacshotguns.com/ ). It didn't even hurt too awful much - the 981 was $135 total OTD (that includes shipping, transfer & tax), the Pardner was $190 total OTD and the '97 clone was $385 NIB OTD.

Oh, the sacrifices I make for you folks...

This one will be yet another long term stream of consciousness type review. So far all I've gotten done is to unbox all three, field strip and clean the 981 and the Pardner, and dry out and wax the '97. Both the 981 and the Pardner still had shipping grease/preservative liberally applied inside, but a spray bath with WD40 and a good cleaning took care of that. The '97 had light oil, not grease, and only needed a good wiping down and its first coat of Johnson's paste wax. Good thing, because IMHO if it takes a screwdriver, it ain't field stripping. With any luck, as much of the inside of the '97 as I will ever see will be peering down the bore and looking through the ejection and loading ports.

The purpose behind getting the 981 and the Pardner was to be able to do my own comparison with Remington's flagship pumpgun, the 870. For someone with a 40-year ongoing acquaintance with 870s, fieldstripping the two Chinese copies was no problem at all. The two guns, almost brand new, have a little bit of a 'crusty' feel to their actions even after cleaning all the grease out. They have some sharp edges in the receiver and other places, and I believe the 'feel' of the guns is due to those machining marks. I anticipate they will smooth out over time and with use. All I have to do now is use 'em for a while.

The forearm on the Pardner was misaligned, apparently from the factory. It rubbed the barrel slightly on the left side as the forearm reciprocated. A few minutes with the Menck forearm tool straightened that out with no problems.

So far I haven't tried any parts substitutions/replacements. We'll get to that in time. Without measuring or trying, though, it appears everything except barrels and magazine tubes will probably interchange easily. And it looks as if the plethora of Remington accessories available out there will fit as well. I can't see much need for anything beyond what I usually use- a Sidesaddle, sling swivel studs and a light mount and light. The Pardner had sling swivel studs in place, the 981 didn't. I'm going to see if I can get a set from IAC for it. On both guns, the stud for the rear swivel screws into a brass bushing in the stock, and the front stud fits through a hole in the center of the magazine cap.

Both the 981 and the Pardner have 18.5" barrels with 3" chambers and 5-round magazines. LOP on the black plastic stocks is about 13 3/4". The forearm on the 981 is a short ribbed 'corncob' style that looks much like those on some Winchester shotguns, while that on the Pardner is more like the 870 'field' style that covers part of the receiver when the action is open. Magazine tubes on both are 'dimpled' in the style of newer 870 Express guns, and the same style of one-piece plastic magazine spring retainer/magazine cap detent is used as well. Magazine followers in both are plastic, cup shaped, just as on current production Express guns- in this case, they're orange.

Finish on both examples is a matte black. It appears to be a phosphate finish applied to a bead blasted or sand blasted surface, I can't really tell. After cleaning, both soaked up appreciable quantities of light oil. Both appear to be as durable as one could want, and in conjunction with the matte finish plastic furniture, they give the guns a most businesslike appearance. Both are equipped with brass bead front sights. Both have what feel like fairly functional recoil pads, well fitted to the plastic stocks. The pads are a bit 'grabby' as far as their side surfaces are concerned, a good gun mount should allow shouldering with no problem- and working from the usual low ready position is no problem at all. I like to index the toe of the stock on a particular spot on my shoulder pocket, then roll the gun down to low ready while keeping that index. Maintaining a constant index with the toe of the stock makes a consistent gun mount easy from the low ready or indoor ready position- all that's necessary is to roll the gun back up to firing position using the toe of the stock as the pivot point.

As time permits I'll be working with these guns a bit, doing some patterning, checking on parts interchangeability, etc. I'll add more as things develop...

lpl

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Good review, lots of info. Plus, what's not to love about a backseat full of shotguns???? :-D

 

[Dave McCracken]

Awaiting a T&E,Lee.

Thanks...

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Nice. What's the difference B/T a 981 and 982? I have a 982 and I tell you, it's a solid piece of equipment.

Holy crap - $135 out the door?!? - man they're gonna put the Americans out of business!

 

[Fred Fuller]

The 981 has a bead sight, the 982 has ghost ring sights from the factory. Other than that, they're the same as far as I know.

My 981 was sold as 'used.' The listing on Gunbroker put it in an out of the way place- apparently no one else noticed it. I submitted what traders call a 'stink bid' and waited...

lpl

 

[Ben86]

I recently bought the pardner you speak of. It is a really good gun for the money. I really like it's compact size. It also handles recoil very well. Mine is currently out of commission because of a bad feed latch from the factory, but as soon as that is worked out I feel I'll have a nice, reliable shotgun considering I only payed $189 new. Steel shotshells also tend to stick in the chamber, but a little polishing is probably all that is needed.

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

I purchased a 20ga blued/walnut version today --$179 NIB--$192 and change out the door.

I went over it with a fine toothed comb in the store and a complete dis-assembly at home confirmed it is indeed a quality piece for dirt cheap---only thing that would have been better would be to include a full set of choke tubes----came with MOD only.

I looked it over--set it back in the rack---walked away--came back--hemmed and hawed for over an hour in the store----the only thing I could find wrong with it is that it was made in China.

Got it home--took it apart---cleaned the internals and gave it a good wipe down---its smooth functioning and good looking----sad part is its going to see major abuse and neglect because I bought it to be my truck/trunk gun----for that cheap of a price--I'm out virtually nothing if it falls apart or gets stolen.

 

[kcmarine]

Good review, lots of info. Plus, what's not to love about a backseat full of shotguns???? :-D

The look on the CA Highway Patrolman's face.


Nicely done. I'm not a big fan of the Chinese made goods thing, but different strokes for different folks I guess.

I also purchased something here of late... my first.

 

[MAX100]

I went over it with a fine toothed comb in the store and a complete dis-assembly at home confirmed it is indeed a quality piece for dirt cheap---only thing that would have been better would be to include a full set of choke tubes----came with MOD only.

They are a heck of a deal.

LL :
The purpose behind getting the 981 and the Pardner was to be able to do my own comparison with Remington's flagship pumpgun, the 870. For someone with a 40-year ongoing acquaintance with 870s, fieldstripping the two Chinese copies was no problem at all. The two guns, almost brand new, have a little bit of a 'crusty' feel to their actions even after cleaning all the grease out. They have some sharp edges in the receiver and other places, and I believe the 'feel' of the guns is due to those machining marks. I anticipate they will smooth out over time and with use. All I have to do now is use 'em for a while.

Now you need to keep your eye out a HAWK Model 37 (GRS & heat shield), 371 (bead sight) or 372 (GRS & heat shield) Ithaca copy shotgun. I would love pick one up myself if I find one in good shape for a good price. I sold mine thinking I could get another one later, then they stopped importing them. I had good one too.


GC

 

[Fred Fuller]

Thanks, Max, but I have a plateful right now working through the three shotguns I have front and center. I may try to snag a 982 if I can find one at a good price, just to complete the Chicom 870 clone stable though.

Been going over the '97 clone a bit, it seems to be a perfect copy of the fixed frame '97 as far as I can see, from examining pictures of the original. This is the first '97 I have spent any time with and I am nothing if not unfamiliar with them. So far so good though, the gun makes a great first impression, with nice walnut and nice bluing.

lpl

 

[waterhouse]

Thanks for the write up Lee. Looking forward to hearing how they do.

 

[MAX100]

Been going over the '97 clone a bit, it seems to be a perfect copy of the fixed frame '97 as far as I can see, from examining pictures of the original. This is the first '97 I have spent any time with and I am nothing if not unfamiliar with them. So far so good though, the gun makes a great first impression, with nice walnut and nice bluing.

You waited for the right time to get a Norinco 97. The this years 97s are the best ones I have seen.

IAC offered a limited 97 model a couple of years ago that came with choke tubes.

I may try to snag a 982 if I can find one at a good price, just to complete the Chicom 870 clone stable though.

Model 98 - first produced has GRS and the smaller GR aperture set screw that doesn't hold as well. Harder stiff recoil pad. This is the model I have.

981 - Bead sight

982 - latest model with GRS and has the larger size M4 GR aperture set screw. Softer recoil pad


GC

 

[Fred Fuller]

After several days of occasional pumping sessions (no abrasives, thanks), cleaning, re-lubing, and pumping some more, the 981 has smoothed up very nicely. That 'crusty' feeling is gone, and the gun now simply feels very solid and crisp. I decided this morning to pull the buttstock on the 981 and inspect its components and assembly.

The recoil pad screws are covered by two round plugs that fill the holes they occupy. I levered them out carefully with a small flat screwdriver blade till I could pull the plugs out. Oddly enough, the screw heads were slot type, not the #2 Phillips I'm accustomed to seeing. But the screws came out easily. Once I pulled the pad I saw why- the recoil pad screws are machine screws, not wood screws, and are screwed into the same kind of brass bushings pressed into the plastic stock that the sling stud is. Neatly done, I must say. The pad has two protrusions on its hard base that fit into recesses in the buttstock to reinforce its fit and help keep it from skidding around under lateral pressure.

The stock itself is heavy walled plastic, very solid. With the pad removed, I squeezed - hard - and couldn't get the sidewalls to flex at all. In addition, the 'webs' at heel and toe are very thick. That should make it pretty easy to cut the stock shorter if needed, and fit a grind-to-fit recoil pad. It might even be possible to re-attach the original pad and grind it down to fit once the stock is shortened- it would be worth a try. The original pad seems to be pretty decent.

The stock bolt terminates right behind the pistol grip in the stock, and the stock itself seems to be solid through that distance. The stock bolt is a slotted hex head, I don't know what size because there wasn't a socket set handy. I got the big bit out of the screwdriver kit, popped in the extension and zipped the buttstock off. There's a stock bearing plate on this one, but it seems a bit thinner than the usual Remington version. Same shape though. I had an Express buttstock handy- it fits reasonably well, but if I were going to put Remington wood on this gun, I'd use a Remington bearing plate too, I think. Just a touch more space seems to be needed to avoid contact of the edges of the stock with the edges of the receiver, which would eventually cause stock chipping under recoil. But given the apparent solidity of the issue plastic furniture, and the apparent readiness with which it can be fitted as needed, I see no reason to change the original furniture.

Looking over the H&R website, I failed to find any listings for available parts- I had decided to cheat, and try ordering a replacement magazine cap with sling swivel stud in place, and a spare stock sling swivel stud, since the parts are interchangeable between the Hawk 981 and the H&R Pardner Pump. So I picked up the phone and called the contact number, ran down the phone tree, and spent a few minutes talking to Elijah at H&R. He told me the parts I wanted (replacement magazine cap with permanent sling swivel stud installed, and the stock sling swivel stud) were out of stock and they weren't really sure when more would arrive. Likewise he said they were backordered on barrels as well. He estimated 'a few weeks' for barrels to become available, and maybe as long as a couple of months for the other parts. To be fair, there are a lot of new working relationships being worked out here and it takes some time to sort out this stuff. I'm not needing parts to make a gun work that doesn't work right now, so that takes pressure off for me. If someone had a Pardner Pump that went down for need of parts... that might be a different deal though. There are always down sides to breaking new ground with a new product. It's something to be aware of in making purchasing decisions, and how soon the parts and spare barrels become readily available remains to be seen.

I have yet to start putting this one through its paces on the range, but I am slowly becoming more and more impressed with what I've seen of it so far. It's definitely a good $135 shotgun... .

lpl

 

[MAX100]

Some very good info. The stock on Protector and 982 shotguns are very thick and made for heavy use.

The mag caps from the H&R Excell A5 shotguns will also fit the Hawk 870 style shotguns. They have the same thread size. They are nice mag caps with a sling swivel and setup for a the plastic racket mag cap/spring retainer.

You can always buy a aftermarket 870 mag cap with sling stud.


The Mossberg 590 mag cap sling studs will fit the threaded brass insert on the butt stock of the Hawk shotguns. But it has a very short screw with only few threads. It probably wouldn't hold well.

It shows that the sling stud for the Hawk shotguns is a common size.


GC

 

[.45Guy]

Been going over the '97 clone a bit, it seems to be a perfect copy of the fixed frame '97 as far as I can see, from examining pictures of the original. This is the first '97 I have spent any time with and I am nothing if not unfamiliar with them. So far so good though, the gun makes a great first impression, with nice walnut and nice bluing

The Chi-com 97's are REALLY close copies of the original. I had alot of fun rebuilding mine with Winchester parts.

 

[oletymer]

The Chinese have landed thanks to cheap [] Americans who buy their crap. They will keep flooding the market with this junk untill people wake up and see the only guns for sale are [] Krapola guns.

 

[Fred Fuller]

oletymer,

Regardless of the political aspects of the marketplace, or of your feelings toward it, THR is a family oriented forum. Certain language, even with cutesy spelling to get around the site's built-in censor, is simply not acceptable here. What few rules there are can be found at http://www.thehighroad.org/announcement.php?a=20 , it might be a good idea to review them at this point.

I am looking at these guns simply because a lot of people ask about them, both in the eworld and in meatworld. The only way I know to give honest answers to those questions is to spend some time hands-on with the guns themselves. There's a half dozen or more genuine US-made 870s here for every Chinese copy, if that makes you feel any better.

lpl

 

[Fred Fuller]

And since the Hawk 982s (870 clone with factory GR sights) are available again, I asked my favorite dealer to order me one of them to add to the gaggle of Chinese scatterguns.

Not a lot new to report at this point, still trying out various experiments with the subjects at hand- mixing and matching furniture, trying various 870 add-ons like slings, lights, Sidesaddles and that sort of thing.

More to come...

lpl

 

[MAX100]

When you get the 982 replace the ghost ring sight slot mount screws & the elevation set screw with better Allen socket screws. They are size M4 available @ your local hardware store. You will have to shorten the mount screws a little.


GC

 

[Radjxf]

Coincidently, I just picked up a NIB Hawk 981 for just a few $ more than yours.

I broke her down, removed the gummy chinese preservative oil, and gave it a modest "fluff and buff". Basically just stoned sharp edges on the action bars, trued some of the tracks in the reciever, etc.

I must say I am amazed at the quality of this gun, esp considering the price.
I dare say this gun is of higher quality than most any Remington Express, for less money. Mine has a fairly nice metal triggerguard assy as well---no plastic. I dropped in a Scattergun big-head safety from an 870; no other mods planned.

I grabbed a box of Estate 00 magnum buckshot, and proceeded to break her in right. I am going to have to make some sort of padding, as my face took a beating from that synthetic stock. Like getting whacked in the cheek with a bat covered in 220 grit sandpaper

 

[Mike U.]

Lee, I'm looking forward to your test and evaluation.

 

[Pweller]

Lee, I'd like to know your thoughts on comparing the '97 design vs. the 870. I own an 870, so I'm familiar with that gun. I think I've seen photos of the '97 with the action open, and it looks rather unelegant (almost like a lever action, with the bolt sticking out the back). I understand the obvious point that the '97 is an older design. Do you think the appeal of that gun is mostly nostalgia? Is the later 870 design more robust or more reliable (maybe because the receiver is enclosed)? I have to admit I like the blued steel and wood look, but I don't like kludgey designs.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Pweller,

The Winchester 97 was essentially the third pump shotgun design produced in the US. It was originally manufactured as the Winchester Model 1893, of course, and the shift to smokeless powder at that time had much to do with the redesign that was responsible for the 97. Slide action firearms originated earlier in Europe, but the designs were applied to rifles there. It took Americans to bring the world slide-action repeating shotguns.

The oldest was the Spencer, first patented in 1882. It was designed by Christopher M. Spencer (of repeating rifle fame) and Sylvester H. Roper. http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/spencer-shotgun.htm

Mostly a contemporary of the Winchester 1893 was a genuinely remarkable design, that brought about the first purposefully-designed fighting shotgun- a design that would be revolutionary even were it introduced today. That remarkable pumpgun was the Burgess Folding Shotgun, patented in 1894 and based on earlier Burgess sporting designs. http://www.shootingbums.org/hvr/burgess.html

There were huge patent legal battles in those days over varisous aspects of pumpgun design in the USA. Winchester won out in the end. The Winchester 1893 was based on a patent first granted to John M. Browning in 1890. That early patent was acquired by Winchester in that year, but the design, unlike most of Browning's designs, was not ready for mass production. It took a couple of years of mechanical tweaking- not to mention legal battles- before the design ws ready to produce. During that time, the only other pumpgun in production was the Spencer. Not a lot of Model 1893s were manufactured, comparatively speaking. The Model 1897 however stayed in production for six decades, until 1957. Almost a million of them had been manufactured during that 60-year time span.

The Model 97 is a very old design. But it worked, and given the massive size of its moving parts, it lasted pretty well. It had a few weaknesses, like the ejector, but just imagine the difference having five fat 12 gauge shells on tap that could be dispensed as fast as the forearm could be reciprocated.

Remember, the 97 has an interruptor mechanism that keeps the hammer from falling till the bolt is locked- but no disconnector. As long as the trigger is held back and there's ammo in the magazine, the gun will fire every time the slide goes forward. That allowed a skilled '97 operator to lay out a burst of fire that was scathing in its effect, within the range of buckshot of course.

The Model 97 was made both in solid frame and take-down models. The take -down guns were truly that- they came apart at the front of the receiver, not at the end of a fixed magazine tube. Thus a riot gun version of the Model 97 took down to fit into a neat package less than two feet long. That made it handy for travelling. Not as handy as the Burgess, of course, which could be folded with its magazine tube loaded and ready. But handy nonetheless.

The 97 is a typical Browning design of the time period. It has a ton of tiny parts and screws, despite its beefy-looking major components. You can see this at http://www.okiegunsmithshop.com/Win1897.jpg .

The Remington 870 on the other hand has the benefit of 57 years of progress in firearms design, metallurgy, manufacturing, tooling etc. Its design was created to be less expensive to manufacture than earlier designs, which depended on a lot of machining, plus final hand fitting and assembly. The 870 has - gasp - stamped sheet metal parts in some places! Oh, the humanity. There are those who say the 870 is an inferior design for this very reason. In some respects they are correct- but no one can afford to produce models requiring the earlier levels of fit and finish these days. So there we are.

You can see an equivalent drawing of the 870 at http://www.okiegunsmithshop.com/rem870.jpg . Keep in mind that the trigger plate assembly is intended to be removed, cleaned, lubricated and reinstalled as a unit, as are the other easily accessible major assemblies.

Is the Winchester 1897 designed that way? Well, let's just say I haven't found anything so far that comes off without a screwdriver. "Field stripping" was an undiscovered concept in pump shotguns in 1897.

I'd say the current appeal of the 97 is based mostly on the burgeoning popularity of CAS or Cowboy Action Shooting. There is indeed a lot of nostalgia out there, and much of it is wearing cowboy hats too . Read some of the CAS boards and see how robust the Model 97 is in heavy use compared to the 870. I'd say the Remington has a significant edge in that regard.

FWIW,

lpl

 

[Pweller]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Lee, that was very informative. That Burgess is quite an unsual design, but it is an interesting concept. Now I see why the Norinco '97 is quite a bit more expensive than the Norinco 870 (previously I thought it was just because the 97 was shinier ). I'll have to check out some of the CAS boards to see what they say about the '97 reliability.

Edit:
After a bit of reading, I found people who said that some of the Norinco 97s have short chambers and/or forcing cones. Apparently, on some of these, the end of the shotgun shell doesn't have enough room to open completely, which leads to greater felt recoil. Some CAS gunsmiths lengthen the chamber and open up the forcing cone to correct this. I also saw references to gunsmiths smoothing the action on them. Seems more like a 'project' gun to me, though I'm no expert. I'm just passing along what I read from a few different sources.

 

[stealth]

I've just ordered a 982 for myself as well, perhaps when it arrives I can add my own thoughts to this thread.

Already bought some 'test ammo', ready to rock n roll.

Heres to hoping I too get a great example.