What year did Remington shotgun quality collapse?

[314159]

Reading about the Federal Flight Control 20 gauge load coming out.

Thinking about a Remington 20 (1100 or 11-87) with a mag extension. (Unable to presently find any extensions for other brands.)

Probably have to pick up something used. So what year manufacture must I avoid as the plague?

[HCM]

Reading about the Federal Flight Control 20 gauge load coming out.

Thinking about a Remington 20 (1100 or 11-87) with a mag extension. (Unable to presently find any extensions for other brands.)

Probably have to pick up something used. So what year manufacture must I avoid as the plague?

There is no one year Remington QC “collapsed.”

It was a gradual process.

Regardless I would not trust even the best of Remington 1100s or 11-87s for duty or self defense.

[314159]

My experiences with both differs. This will be a pampered ladies gun in any event, not an entry team issue piece.

So, what year was it that Remington first came down with the sniffles, if not full blown plague?

[HCM]

My experiences with both differs. This will be a pampered ladies gun in any event, not an entry team issue piece.

So, what year was it that Remington first came down with the sniffles, if not full blown plague?

Pampered or not I would not trust either for anything other than hunting or clays.

I know people who’ve had good experiences with them for hunting and clays but every 1100/11-87 I’ve seen pressed into “tactical” use has been problematic whether personal or Agency owned /operated.

Performance with bird shot doesn’t translate to performance with buck and slugs.

The 870s and 700 rifles started their decline in the mid to late 2000s.

[Grouse870]

I think the issues have been mostly over blown. Generally speaking I think the issues are in the mid 2000s. However I have four from that era and my dad has at least that many. Outside of a minor rust issue I haven’t had any issues. My main 870 has a lot of rounds through it at this point. I think you will be just fine.

[JohnO]

I have a Remington 870 Wingmaster 12G that was purchased in approximately 1979.

[Borderland]

I've had a few. I have an 870 that was made in 1970. Bought it new and used it for years to hunt. Thousands of rounds through it and never a problem. I had an 1100 for awhile but didn't use it much. Probably an 80's gun but not sure. Never had any problems with it the few years I had it. I have an 11-87 now. Probably early 90's manufacture. I just bought it last summer so maybe 500 rds so far. It works just fine.

I'm not sure why they get a bad rap these days. Maybe because I've never experienced one made recently. I've looked at newer ones and the quality just doesn't compare to the older ones. How they hold up I wouldn't know.

So from my experience they were fine up until Dupont sold the company in 92. There's still many of those older ones out there and I wouldn't hesitating buying one. Obviously, because I just did.

[fatdog]

I too found all 1100's to be guns that cannot be run hard. 1998-2002 I was running one as my primary 3-gun shotgun, both a 12ga and an LT20 (20 ga made major), the interceptor latch was my sworn enemy as well as a few other fiddly parts and those damn pins in the action that were little more than cut off paperclips. My 1100's fit the old saying, if you are going to run one in 3-gun you need three. One to start the match, one to finish the match when that one goes down, and one that is already away at the gunsmith getting fixed.

I became a hard core Benelli M1S90 fan in that era and graduated from my Remington phase, the Benelli's were rougher to shoot, a lot more recoil, but worked 110% if you fed them ammo they liked.

As cited, the 1100 is just not a robust design and IMO only good for killing a few pheasants.

We live in an era where there are some truly good soft shooting gas shotguns for defensive use, the original 1100 is not and has not ever been one in my view.

[HCM]

I too found all 1100's to be guns that cannot be run hard. 1998-2002 I was running one as my primary 3-gun shotgun, both a 12ga and an LT20 (20 ga made major), the interceptor latch was my sworn enemy as well as a few other fiddly parts and those damn pins in the action that were little more than cut off paperclips. My 1100's fit the old saying, if you are going to run one in 3-gun you need three. One to start the match, one to finish the match when that one goes down, and one that is already away at the gunsmith getting fixed.

I became a hard core Benelli M1S90 fan in that era and graduated from my Remington phase, the Benelli's were rougher to shoot, a lot more recoil, but worked 110% if you fed them ammo they liked.

As cited, the 1100 is just not a robust design and IMO only good for killing a few pheasants.

We live in an era where there are some truly good soft shooting gas shotguns for defensive use, the original 1100 is not and has not ever been one in my view.

In fairness to the 1100/11-87 bird shot (clays and bird hunting) is what they were designed to do. They were never intended to be run with any significant quantity of buck or slugs. Even the so called police or tactical variants were just cosmetics and marketing from an era when LE shotguns were carried much and shot little.

But ultimately, I agree, there’s nothing that would require federal flight control that I would want to use one for.

[Hambo]

Reading about the Federal Flight Control 20 gauge load coming out.

Thinking about a Remington 20 (1100 or 11-87) with a mag extension. (Unable to presently find any extensions for other brands.)

Probably have to pick up something used. So what year manufacture must I avoid as the plague?

Look for an '80s 1100, don't add a mag extension (not really needed), and hope for the best. Then buy a lifetime supply of the 20ga FC the moment you see it for sale. Federal is terrible about buckshot production, and has discontinued some of the best loads because Federal.

Alternatively, she could get an A300 Patrol or 940 Tactical in 12ga with a proper length stock and shoot it just as well, if not better, using low recoil FC.

[gato naranja]

There is no one year Remington QC “collapsed.”

It was a gradual process.

Indeed it was... and it was also inconsistent. There were decent ones amongst the tart yellow citrus fruits.

I'm more guilty than most about the good old days, but they weren't always that good. My F-I-L got a new 11-48 for waterfowling some time in the late 1950s, and it was one of those guns that had small, but irritating hitches. He was delighted with the way it looked and was pretty proud of it, but it was not 100%. Eventually it had a major meltdown (a lifter or some such thing, IIRC), after which the local gunsmith packed it up and sent it to Remington to be fixed. It came back in the form of a new 1100, which served him well until he passed away decades later.

[farscott]

This is a tough one to answer, but like most gunmakers the answer is 1945. WW II required unprecedented amounts of manufacturing, including small arms. The goals were ever increasing production rates at lower costs to meet the government's needs. When the war ended, the lessons about efficiency, especially those learned from the Germans and the cost-reduced US arms, were applied to commercial firearms. The goal became good enough versus good as can be.

It started simply with serrations replacing checkering or knurling. It moved into stamped sheet metal parts. The Remington Model 11 as designed by JMB is nothing like the design of the 11-48 even though both used the long-recoil operating scheme. The Model 11 parts were machined from blocks of steel; the 11-48 used many stamped sheet metal parts Works just fine but was not as good. The 11-48 also fiddled with the JMB friction piece design. That was the start of the decline. The mindset changed from making weapons to last lifetimes to weapons good enough to sell but maximizing profit. Makes sense as Remington was in financial distress before WW II, resulting in the sale to DuPont.

[314159]

Yesterday I reflected on this project and came to the same conclusion as Hambo.

You know, I still think for the limited use this shotgun would get, an 1100 or 11-87 would work just fine. However, why goof around with all this when I should see how light and handy I can make a 1301 instead? The FFC 20 gauge is still vaporware, the 12 ga. FFC 8 pellet will recoil still less, and this gives me an excuse to get a Gen 2 1301 for me.

I shall now proceed to strip down my early generation 1301 to the bare bones. Once again PF (The Enabler®).

[DDTSGM]

This is a tough one to answer, but like most gunmakers the answer is 1945. WW II required unprecedented amounts of manufacturing, including small arms. The goals were ever increasing production rates at lower costs to meet the government's needs. When the war ended, the lessons about efficiency, especially those learned from the Germans and the cost-reduced US arms, were applied to commercial firearms. The goal became good enough versus good as can be.

It started simply with serrations replacing checkering or knurling. It moved into stamped sheet metal parts. The Remington Model 11 as designed by JMB is nothing like the design of the 11-48 even though both used the long-recoil operating scheme. The Model 11 parts were machined from blocks of steel; the 11-48 used many stamped sheet metal parts Works just fine but was not as good. The 11-48 also fiddled with the JMB friction piece design. That was the start of the decline. The mindset changed from making weapons to last lifetimes to weapons good enough to sell but maximizing profit. Makes sense as Remington was in financial distress before WW II, resulting in the sale to DuPont.

That is very interesting, thanks. I would be interested in reading more if you care to post more, or if there is one, provide a source. I'm sure others might also be interested.

Thanks.

[Erick Gelhaus]

What year? I can say without hesitation that their QA/QC had significant issues by '04. My old org bought 300 14" 870s from them that year. We had far more issues, breakages, replacements, and returns out of them than everything we had before - including evidence guns that were re-purposed.

[Borderland]

I too found all 1100's to be guns that cannot be run hard. 1998-2002 I was running one as my primary 3-gun shotgun, both a 12ga and an LT20 (20 ga made major), the interceptor latch was my sworn enemy as well as a few other fiddly parts and those damn pins in the action that were little more than cut off paperclips. My 1100's fit the old saying, if you are going to run one in 3-gun you need three. One to start the match, one to finish the match when that one goes down, and one that is already away at the gunsmith getting fixed.

I became a hard core Benelli M1S90 fan in that era and graduated from my Remington phase, the Benelli's were rougher to shoot, a lot more recoil, but worked 110% if you fed them ammo they liked.

As cited, the 1100 is just not a robust design and IMO only good for killing a few pheasants.

We live in an era where there are some truly good soft shooting gas shotguns for defensive use, the original 1100 is not and has not ever been one in my view.

As cited, the 1100 is just not a robust design and IMO only good for killing a few pheasants.

Well, they aren't Berettas, that's for sure. You can do a lot more with a Beretta than shoot a few pheasants. :D

[TCinVA]

In mid to late 80's Remington started making the 870 Express guns. These were guns that were manufactured the same as the Wingmasters, but instead of a polished blued finish they got a matte blue and less fancy wood.

Eventually in the late 90's to early 2000's that turned into a spray-on polymer finish and MIM parts like the extractor. I bought an 870 Express back then as I'd hunted with my dad's 80's vintage 870 express and it was an outstanding gun. Matte finished, but the action was smooth as silk.

I suspect that the original 870 Express receivers spent the usual amount of time in the vibra-hone bath right along side the ones destined to become wingmasters.

The 870's receiver is hogged out of a single piece of steel with a lot of material loss. I don't remember the exact percentage, but it's a bunch off of an ingot that is roughly 870 receiver shaped. That requires a bunch of different machining processes which used to be done on multiple machines as CNC wasn't a thing. That's expensive. So cost cutting was done where it could be to sell a shotgun that could show up in Wal-Mart at an affordable price under Wal-Mart's notorious cost-cutting regime. At the time they were a massive retailer for firearms to include having special exclusive editions of guns manufactured just for their stores. So manufacturers felt pressured to keep up so their gun would be in the store where people were shopping.

(Wal-Mart used to sell handguns back in the day. Imagine that!)

My Express was not like my dad's. The action was a lot rougher. The stock and forend were synthetic. It had an MIM extractor and a plastic trigger guard. And it sure didn't shoot like my father's gun, either.

That gun is now my main teaching 870. It's been cerakoted, the stock and forend have been replaced with Magpul units, and the barrel is an 18" 870 Police barrel with rifle sights that has had the forcing cone lengthened and the entire bore has been honed. The end result of all of that work is a gun that performs extremely well and patterns great with most decent buckshot.

...but it still doesn't run as smooth as a Wingmaster, a Police model, or even an older Express.

Sometime in the 90's the 870 production was broken into two lines with the Wingmaster and Police guns made on an entirely separate line from the Express. This happened because Remington had tried some of the cost cutting measures on the 870 Police guns and had received such negative feedback from agencies that they were basically forced into that.

That, of course, didn't solve all their problems. Barrels still got drilled crooked. Chambers were rough. Sights got soldered on crooked. Actions were rough. Etc.

When I'm buying, I look for either a Police gun, a Wingmaster, or an older Express with the aluminum trigger guard on it as I've only ever seen those on the older Express guns that are made better. Even if it's a project gun and will be heavily customized, the Police and Wingmaster guns have a much smoother action than the late 90's-bankruptcy Express guns and it's worth the extra money to grab one.

[KevH]

As a good rule of thumb the early-to-mid-2000's is when things at Remington went south.

The 1990's and earlier guns are generally pretty good.

[OfficeCat]

This is a tough one to answer, but like most gunmakers the answer is 1945. WW II required unprecedented amounts of manufacturing, including small arms. The goals were ever increasing production rates at lower costs to meet the government's needs. When the war ended, the lessons about efficiency, especially those learned from the Germans and the cost-reduced US arms, were applied to commercial firearms. The goal became good enough versus good as can be.

It started simply with serrations replacing checkering or knurling. It moved into stamped sheet metal parts. The Remington Model 11 as designed by JMB is nothing like the design of the 11-48 even though both used the long-recoil operating scheme. The Model 11 parts were machined from blocks of steel; the 11-48 used many stamped sheet metal parts Works just fine but was not as good. The 11-48 also fiddled with the JMB friction piece design. That was the start of the decline. The mindset changed from making weapons to last lifetimes to weapons good enough to sell but maximizing profit. Makes sense as Remington was in financial distress before WW II, resulting in the sale to DuPont.

Exactly. Compare the model 721/722 to a pre-64 Model 70. Remington was way ahead of Winchester in this regard; it took Winchester years to realize they needed to go cheap or go broke. My grandfather's first new rifle after he got home from WWII was a 721 in .270. He told me how an Army buddy had convinced him he needed a .270, and when he was ready to buy circa 1948 he went to the store and they had two in stock, the 721 and a Model 70. For some reason he went with the Remington. Maybe it was the price, or maybe it was because it was more modern. He did eventually put it into a nice Bishop stock, and he took a lot af deer with it over the next 40 years.

[deputyG23]

In mid to late 80's Remington started making the 870 Express guns. These were guns that were manufactured the same as the Wingmasters, but instead of a polished blued finish they got a matte blue and less fancy wood.

Eventually in the late 90's to early 2000's that turned into a spray-on polymer finish and MIM parts like the extractor. I bought an 870 Express back then as I'd hunted with my dad's 80's vintage 870 express and it was an outstanding gun. Matte finished, but the action was smooth as silk.

I suspect that the original 870 Express receivers spent the usual amount of time in the vibra-hone bath right along side the ones destined to become wingmasters.

The 870's receiver is hogged out of a single piece of steel with a lot of material loss. I don't remember the exact percentage, but it's a bunch off of an ingot that is roughly 870 receiver shaped. That requires a bunch of different machining processes which used to be done on multiple machines as CNC wasn't a thing. That's expensive. So cost cutting was done where it could be to sell a shotgun that could show up in Wal-Mart at an affordable price under Wal-Mart's notorious cost-cutting regime. At the time they were a massive retailer for firearms to include having special exclusive editions of guns manufactured just for their stores. So manufacturers felt pressured to keep up so their gun would be in the store where people were shopping.

(Wal-Mart used to sell handguns back in the day. Imagine that!)



My Express was not like my dad's. The action was a lot rougher. The stock and forend were synthetic. It had an MIM extractor and a plastic trigger guard. And it sure didn't shoot like my father's gun, either.

That gun is now my main teaching 870. It's been cerakoted, the stock and forend have been replaced with Magpul units, and the barrel is an 18" 870 Police barrel with rifle sights that has had the forcing cone lengthened and the entire bore has been honed. The end result of all of that work is a gun that performs extremely well and patterns great with most decent buckshot.

...but it still doesn't run as smooth as a Wingmaster, a Police model, or even an older Express.

Sometime in the 90's the 870 production was broken into two lines with the Wingmaster and Police guns made on an entirely separate line from the Express. This happened because Remington had tried some of the cost cutting measures on the 870 Police guns and had received such negative feedback from agencies that they were basically forced into that.

That, of course, didn't solve all their problems. Barrels still got drilled crooked. Chambers were rough. Sights got soldered on crooked. Actions were rough. Etc.

When I'm buying, I look for either a Police gun, a Wingmaster, or an older Express with the aluminum trigger guard on it as I've only ever seen those on the older Express guns that are made better. Even if it's a project gun and will be heavily customized, the Police and Wingmaster guns have a much smoother action than the late 90's-bankruptcy Express guns and it's worth the extra money to grab one.
I was lucky enough to buy two Expresses from the late '80s from co-workers who would sell after hunting season to pay holiday bills.
The first one was converted into a work shotgun when I went from courts to the road in '93 by putting on the factory police stock and fore-end and adding a magazine extension along with a 20" rifle sight barrel. We were not provided shotguns at the time and had to get our own then if desired. It has had a butt ton of rounds through it with no issues.
The second one was left alone for a dedicated hunting gun. My son has it now and has shot it a bunch, including one defensive course, with the aforementioned 20" barrel, with a fairly high round count for one day. No issues.

[gato naranja]

Despite being designed to be cheap (er) to make, it should still be remembered that the 870 was sort of a wunderkind when it showed up. Yes, it may have been another step in the history of the the sporting "punch press gun," but as a complete package it sure impressed a lot of people at the time... maybe not the owners and users of high-grade shotguns, but for the man of middling means, it was the right gun at the right time. It took various changes of management and bean-counters years to cut corners in the small details and give the thing a black eye.

ALL the big names screwed the QC pooch for miniscule savings, some of them before the second round of the World Wars, others after it. The various post-DuPont suits at Remington just seemed particularly clueless about how to save/spend money. Sponsoring NASCAR teams and licensing the brand for use on cheap POP merchandise didn't work out so well.

[Borderland]

I really wanted a model 12 when I bought my 870 in 1970. By then they had been gone from production for awhile. I think the 870's lower cost of production may have contributed to the model 12's demise. My dad was a bird hunter and said a model 12 is the shotgun you want, if you can afford one. He hunted with a model 97, which I still have.

https://i.ibb.co/m66JcHS/Rem870-S312360-V.jpg (https://ibb.co/Rzz2DC7)
resize photo for facebook online (https://imgbb.com/)

https://i.ibb.co/t3K0wVd/Win97-E635179.jpg (https://ibb.co/Ws5rNmT)

[gato naranja]

I really wanted a model 12 when I bought my 870 in 1970. By then they had been gone from production for awhile. I think the 870's lower cost of production may have contributed to the model 12's demise. My dad was a bird hunter and said a model 12 is the shotgun you want, if you can afford one. He hunted with a model 97, which I still have.

The 870 dressed in "Wingmaster" clothes was the pump-gun yardstick of measure among the generation right ahead of me, but yeah, the 12 was the gun that their fathers' generation swore by. I suppose there may have been small numbers of the Model 25 in that group, but if so, I don't really remember them. The 97s were definitely not as common by then, many having worn major components down to where they were retired or turned into liquid assets.

(Speaking of the 25, I wonder if some of the shooting cognoscenti of the time lamented that it was Winchester's shotgun "quality collapse"?)

[LHS]

The 870 dressed in "Wingmaster" clothes was the pump-gun yardstick of measure among the generation right ahead of me, but yeah, the 12 was the gun that their fathers' generation swore by. I suppose there may have been small numbers of the Model 25 in that group, but if so, I don't really remember them. The 97s were definitely not as common by then, many having worn major components down to where they were retired or turned into liquid assets.

(Speaking of the 25, I wonder if some of the shooting cognoscenti of the time lamented that it was Winchester's shotgun "quality collapse"?)

My Grandpap still maintains that Winchester died the day they stopped making the Model 12.

[Tabasco]

I really wanted a model 12 when I bought my 870 in 1970. By then they had been gone from production for awhile. I think the 870's lower cost of production may have contributed to the model 12's demise. My dad was a bird hunter and said a model 12 is the shotgun you want, if you can afford one. He hunted with a model 97, which I still have.

https://i.ibb.co/m66JcHS/Rem870-S312360-V.jpg (https://ibb.co/Rzz2DC7)
resize photo for facebook online (https://imgbb.com/)



This is what Santa brought me in 1980, purchased at K-Mart. My first paying job was at the Miramar Gun Club (trap and skeet) where I could shoot for free (had to buy ammo). Bought a 26" bbl. with a Poly-Choke for skeet.