Wanting an auto-loader

Bob Locke · December 23, 2001, 02:01 PM

On my "list of firearms to get" there is a spot for a 12-ga. auto-loading shotgun. Haven't filled that slot yet, and am starting to do my homework on the subject.

First look is at the Remington 1100 or 1187. Like to hear opinions on both, and why I might want to spend the couple of extra bucks for the 1187 (or why not to).

Second choice right now would probably be Benelli, or possibly Ruger.

I'd like to hear from the knowledgeable folks around here on the matter.

TIA.

Al Thompson · December 23, 2001, 04:04 PM

Bob, what's the mission?

None of the ones mentioned are bad - might want to consider the Beretta also..

BTW, IIRC, Ruger is only in O/U configuration...

Giz

PJR · December 23, 2001, 05:03 PM

It depends on what you want to do with the gun. If it is for targets only, the 1100 is the better choice. If you want to hunt and shoot heavier loads then the 11/87 is the way to go.

The 1100's I've seen recently don't reflect one of Remington's better periods of manufacturing. Of your two choices, I'd pay the extra for the Benelli before putting my money down on a current Remington. That Remington safety is enough on its own to rule the gun out of contention.

Before either though I'd buy a Beretta 391 or 390. Rugers as noted previously don't make a semi-auto shotgun.

Bob Locke · December 23, 2001, 10:59 PM

Gun is primarily going to be used for hunting birds and possibly busting clays on occasion.

Q: Can you shoot 3" shells through a gun chambered for 3 1/2"?

Dave McC · December 24, 2001, 07:20 AM

Yes you can, Bob. BUT, the reverse is not true. Only use shells that are the marked length or shorter.

December 23, 2001, 02:01 PM	#1
Bob Locke Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 1999 Location: Greeley, CO Posts: 2,518	Wanting an auto-loader On my "list of firearms to get" there is a spot for a 12-ga. auto-loading shotgun. Haven't filled that slot yet, and am starting to do my homework on the subject. First look is at the Remington 1100 or 1187. Like to hear opinions on both, and why I might want to spend the couple of extra bucks for the 1187 (or why not to). Second choice right now would probably be Benelli, or possibly Ruger. I'd like to hear from the knowledgeable folks around here on the matter. TIA. __________________ "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

December 23, 2001, 04:04 PM	#2
Al Thompson Staff Alumnus Join Date: May 2, 1999 Location: South Carolina Posts: 3,611	Bob, what's the mission? None of the ones mentioned are bad - might want to consider the Beretta also.. BTW, IIRC, Ruger is only in O/U configuration... Giz __________________ http://www.scfirearms.org/

December 23, 2001, 10:59 PM	#4
Bob Locke Senior Member Join Date: December 19, 1999 Location: Greeley, CO Posts: 2,518	Gun is primarily going to be used for hunting birds and possibly busting clays on occasion. Q: Can you shoot 3" shells through a gun chambered for 3 1/2"? __________________ "When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

December 23, 2001, 05:03 PM	#3
PJR Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 2000 Posts: 1,127	It depends on what you want to do with the gun. If it is for targets only, the 1100 is the better choice. If you want to hunt and shoot heavier loads then the 11/87 is the way to go. The 1100's I've seen recently don't reflect one of Remington's better periods of manufacturing. Of your two choices, I'd pay the extra for the Benelli before putting my money down on a current Remington. That Remington safety is enough on its own to rule the gun out of contention. Before either though I'd buy a Beretta 391 or 390. Rugers as noted previously don't make a semi-auto shotgun.

December 24, 2001, 07:20 AM	#5
Dave McC Staff In Memoriam Join Date: October 13, 1999 Location: Columbia, Md, USA Posts: 8,811	Yes you can, Bob. BUT, the reverse is not true. Only use shells that are the marked length or shorter.