Rem 1100 or Rem 11/87??

jazzbass62 · September 7, 2005, 06:44 PM

I'm fairly new to shotguns, now own an 870 for home defense and know how to use it, but I want to buy a new autoloader for shooting clays just for fun. After chatting with several folks I've narrowed the shotgun choice down to Beretta's 391 or one of the two Remingtons. I want to make sure the autoloader I buy will be reliable for shooting light target loads (given proper maintenance and cleaning of course...). Which Remington would you recommend between the 1100 and the 11/87 (3-inch receiver) and why?? Thanks ahead for your interest and advice!

KE4YYD · September 7, 2005, 08:43 PM

The 11-87 was supposed to replace the 1100. As you can see it did not. Unless you want to shoot magnums tghe 1100 should be your choice. I have 2 1100's bought in the mid 70's still going strong.

mathman · September 7, 2005, 08:51 PM

Why is it that the 1100 is still in production if the 11-87 was supposed to replace it? What are the differences between them? It seems that a good number of people still like the 1100 more than the 11-87.

jazzbass62 · September 7, 2005, 10:42 PM

This is exactly why I'm asking. The 1100 restricts you to 2 3/4-inch shells but I'm fine with that for my application. But I feel that if I overlook the 11/87 somehow am I making a mistake?? Doesn't sound like it. I've heard the 11/87 is finicky with light target loads. Is that only on the 3 1/2 magnum receiver version?? Then my quandry becomes am I giving up on versatility? With a limited budget you can't own 'em all

impact · September 7, 2005, 11:45 PM

I bought a used 1100 in 20ga. I fell in love with that gun! Never shot a 11-87 so I don't know the difference. I would much rather shoot my 1100 than my M1 Super 90 and I love my m1 as well. Just can have more fun with the 1100.

If you want the gun for ducks and geese you may want to go with the 11-87. I really think you need 3 inch shells with steel shot for geese. I think 3 1/2 shell are over rated

auto45 · September 8, 2005, 12:32 PM

I would try to "feel" or better yet, shoot the 1100 and 1187 to see which you like better. The balance was different for me whan I picked them up, but it was a long time ago.

1100's are marketed as target type guns, mostly, and 1187's as hunting.

Many people feel the Beretta is a better auto. It is a better design no doubt, but I'd still pick the one that feels best to you.

Have fun.

September 7, 2005, 06:44 PM	#1
jazzbass62 Junior Member Join Date: September 7, 2005 Location: Northern Foothills of LA Posts: 2	Rem 1100 or Rem 11/87?? I'm fairly new to shotguns, now own an 870 for home defense and know how to use it, but I want to buy a new autoloader for shooting clays just for fun. After chatting with several folks I've narrowed the shotgun choice down to Beretta's 391 or one of the two Remingtons. I want to make sure the autoloader I buy will be reliable for shooting light target loads (given proper maintenance and cleaning of course...). Which Remington would you recommend between the 1100 and the 11/87 (3-inch receiver) and why?? Thanks ahead for your interest and advice!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

September 7, 2005, 08:43 PM	#2
KE4YYD Junior Member Join Date: July 16, 2005 Posts: 13	The 11-87 was supposed to replace the 1100. As you can see it did not. Unless you want to shoot magnums tghe 1100 should be your choice. I have 2 1100's bought in the mid 70's still going strong.

September 7, 2005, 08:51 PM	#3
mathman Senior Member Join Date: January 15, 2005 Location: SoCal Posts: 1,531	Why is it that the 1100 is still in production if the 11-87 was supposed to replace it? What are the differences between them? It seems that a good number of people still like the 1100 more than the 11-87.

September 7, 2005, 10:42 PM	#4
jazzbass62 Junior Member Join Date: September 7, 2005 Location: Northern Foothills of LA Posts: 2	This is exactly why I'm asking. The 1100 restricts you to 2 3/4-inch shells but I'm fine with that for my application. But I feel that if I overlook the 11/87 somehow am I making a mistake?? Doesn't sound like it. I've heard the 11/87 is finicky with light target loads. Is that only on the 3 1/2 magnum receiver version?? Then my quandry becomes am I giving up on versatility? With a limited budget you can't own 'em all

September 7, 2005, 11:45 PM	#5
impact Senior Member Join Date: January 8, 2005 Location: the great state of Texas Posts: 854	I bought a used 1100 in 20ga. I fell in love with that gun! Never shot a 11-87 so I don't know the difference. I would much rather shoot my 1100 than my M1 Super 90 and I love my m1 as well. Just can have more fun with the 1100. If you want the gun for ducks and geese you may want to go with the 11-87. I really think you need 3 inch shells with steel shot for geese. I think 3 1/2 shell are over rated

September 8, 2005, 12:32 PM	#6
auto45 Senior Member Join Date: October 4, 2002 Posts: 427	I would try to "feel" or better yet, shoot the 1100 and 1187 to see which you like better. The balance was different for me whan I picked them up, but it was a long time ago. 1100's are marketed as target type guns, mostly, and 1187's as hunting. Many people feel the Beretta is a better auto. It is a better design no doubt, but I'd still pick the one that feels best to you. Have fun.