Omit the loading tube & turn Rem 11 & Browning auto 5 into mag fed

[Bill Akins]

My concept is no more outrageous than this link to this gentleman's prototypes, who turned a Remy 11 upside down and welded an attachment for a MG42 type trigger group and grip to it.

https://www.policeone.com/police-pro...gauge-shotgun/

That being said, here's my concept. First my rough cobbled together pic I did in "paint". Then I'll explain it (although the pic is almost self explanatory).


The loading tube is removed (obviously). A bushing is affixed to the front of the receiver that the barrel fits thru and clears. That bushing is for the rear of the recoil spring to rest against. There is another bushing on the barrel that is attached via multiple set screws (that dig into, but not thru the barrel) and it is removable to replace the recoil spring. The bushing on the barrel presses against the recoil spring and serves the function of returning the barrel to battery following recoil. You could actually use a friction ring at the rear of the spring that would friction against the sides of the barrel (instead of the loading tube) to slow down barrel recoil.

Some sort of over the barrel handguard could be worked up to cover over the spring to avoid any improperly placed pinched hands when the spring is compressed under recoil. The shell lifter would be removed as would a few other internal parts that have to do with blocking the shell rims having to do with the regular system of the tube loading. With the loading tube removed, there would be room to do some milling to increase the size of the rectangular hole on the bottom so a 12 gauge magazine or drum could be affixed and the catch for it welded on. With the loading tube omitted, you could use a metal piece going forward from the bottom of the receiver to attach either a vertical (think Thompson sub MG) or a horizontal grip. I can not get the same thing with an Origin 12, a Saiga 12 or a Vepr 12 since they are gas operated and not recoil operated.

It's just an academic concept and I doubt I'd take it on with all my other projects, but what helpful to the redesign concept suggestions does anyone have (besides telling me to not do it and leave it alone)?


.

[Bill Akins]

Sigh, I just was informed and realize I overlooked a major obstacle to it being mag fed. I know better and can't believe I overlooked this. Here's what that mag feed obstacle is.

Originally Posted by sovblocgunfan (from Gunboards forum)
I think you could have feeding problems w the magazine. Remember, in the original design the bolt and barrel travel together rearward, and then the bolt unlocks from the barrel, which returns forward and ejects the empty, with another fresh one having been brought up for the bolt to pick up on its way back to battery. During most of this travel, however there is no second shell waiting to be loaded-it is only presented once the barrel is well on its way back to its starting position. You propose to always make a shell available in the path of travel, rather than introduce one into the magazine at a specific time. I am not sure, but I think an ever-present shell would impede the rearward bolt and barrel path and that separation of the bolt and barrel that allows ejection.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ggIXWLvuw


Darn, you are exactly correct sovblocgunfan. I can't believe I missed that and I know better, sheez. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
But if that obstacle could be overcome, I still think it would be do'able. Problem is.....that's a major obstacle to overcome. Still kick myself
for not catching something as obvious as that.


.

[Bill Akins]

Wait a minute, stop the music, hold the phone. I just had a lightbulb go off in my head. I think Sovblocgunfan and someone else who agreed with him at another site..... may have been wrong and had me thinking wrong about the barrel recoiling back and hitting a shot shell. I was thinking about this last night, and although it's always possible I could be wrong, I don't think I am regarding the principle of operation of what I'm about to state.

On the Remy 11 and Browning auto 5, we all know that the barrel and bolt recoil together as a unit about 3 & 1/2 inches right? Okay. So let's view them both for a moment as just one long bolt. Just like a bolt on any semi auto moving rearward. And does the bolt on any mag fed semi auto shotgun (or mag fed semi auto rifle for that matter) slam back into a cartridge? No.

And why is that? Because the bolt is ALREADY over the top of a mag fed shot shell or mag fed rifle cartridge holding it down.....correct? Okay. Then when the bolt rides rearward BEYOND the shot shell or cartridge, the cartridge pops up ready for the bolt to chamber it....correct? Okay.

On the Remy 11 and Browning auto 5, the bolt would already be over the top of any shot shell in my concept mag when I inserted the mag with the bolt closed....correct? Okay.

Then as the bolt and barrel recoil rearward as a unit, they BOTH would continue to hold the shot shell down because the bolt and barrel extension are ALREADY OVER the shell and holding it down....correct? Okay.

Then the bolt stays to the rear and the barrel goes back forward. It is at this point that the shot shell would pop up in the mag ready to be chambered....correct?

When the barrel finishes going back forward, that's when the bolt is released to go back forward and would pick up and chamber the shell....correct?

So on further reflection, I don't think what Sovblocgunfan (from another site) had me thinking earlier....(that the barrel would slam into the mag fed shell under recoil) is going to happen and my concept COULD
be mag fed using the long recoil system of the Remy 11 and Browning auto 5.

Now, all that being said, the next thing to look at would be the bottom of the bolt. Since that bolt is not made to have a bottom portion that would fit between mag lips to chamber a shell, I would have to inspect the bolt to see if it could be milled or even have something added to it to have that bottom of the bolt section to fit between the mag lips to chamber a shell. The Remy 11 and Browning auto 5 bolt removal is a royal pain. But I was planning on welding on a bolt handle extension on them anyway so I would have
to remove the bolts from my two Remy 11's and Browning auto five to do that anyway. So when I get to THAT bolt handle extension project and remove the bolts, I'll carefully inspect the bottom of the bolts to see how they might work with the feed lip of a mag to chamber a shot shell.

Does everything I said above sound mechanically and logically sound? Hopefully I didn't miss anything.

.

[44 AMP]

well I had a nice long post looking at a bunch of things, but hit the wrong key and it went poof, and I don't feel like doing it over now.

So I will leave you with an alternative idea to consider.

Since the drum mag essentially destroys the handling of the gun anyway, I will assume you are only interested in maximizing the ammo capacity.

Consider what it would take to build a "revolver" of magazine tubes (perhaps 3? 6 would be pretty big ) that could be rotated into the feeding position one after another. While this would not have as great a sustained fire capability as being able to replace countless numbers of box/drum mags, I believe it could be made so as to retain the original bolt & receiver feed system.

Just something to consider...

you could, if you really want to sci-fi it, build a ring of feed tubes that encircle the barrel, and a vertical fore grip that you pumped to change tubes. You could enclose the whole thing in a housing, covered in attachment rails!

Just be sure to include the little wheels /anti gravity pods that you'll need to hold it up!!!

Good Luck!

[Bill Akins]

That's already been done 44AMP. It's called the X rail. But bulky and heavy out on the end like that. With my concept, you'd lose the weight of the feeding tube, spring and follower and lifter and could use either a straight stick mag or drum mag closer to the center of balance of the gun without it being way out on the end like the Xrail.





.

[the possum]

With the loading tube omitted, you could use a metal piece going forward from the bottom of the receiver to attach either a vertical (think Thompson sub MG) or a horizontal grip. I can not get the same thing with an Origin 12, a Saiga 12 or a Vepr 12 since they are gas operated and not recoil operated.

It's just an academic concept and I doubt I'd take it on with all my other projects, but what helpful to the redesign concept suggestions does anyone have (besides telling me to not do it and leave it alone)?

I'm still left wondering what the point is. Are you doing all this just so you can have a hi-cap shotgun with a vertical foregrip? Because I'm pretty sure if you could accomplish this project, you could also figure out how to attach a vertical foregrip to a gas operated gun. Or, just start with an inertia operated gun like the Benelli or older Berettas. Then you'd have a gun that's not gas operated, and the barrel does not move like on a recoil operated design.

If you just don't care for the looks of an AK or AR style shotgun, have you considered the Norinco SAS-12?

[Bill Akins]

The Possum, I already have a box mag fed Vepr-12 and an Origin 12 gas operated shotguns that I acquired not by buying, but by other trade means. Otherwise I wouldn't have them since they are gas operated. And the Norinco SAS-12 is also a gas operated shotgun. I am not a big fan personally of gas operated shotguns. And I'm not a big fan of inertia operated shotguns either. My favorite system of operation on a semi auto shotgun is long recoil as the Rem 11 and Browning auto 5, or even the recoil operated floating chamber shotgun of my several Win model 50's (invented by David Marshall "Carbine" Williams of M1 carbine invention fame).

Although the gas operated Norinco SAS-12 has the regular butt stock and fore end configuration and box fed mag look that I'd like (as in my concept pic), it is still gas operated which as I said I am not crazy about. Also it is no longer imported and parts would be limited to find as well as spare mags. Plus their prices have skyrocketed since the Norinco import ban and back when you could pick them up for about $100.00 or so. I have to reluctantly live with gas operation in my Ar's (dirty direct impingement gas blowing back all over everything in the AR) and the piston and gas cylinders on my SKS's, AK's and M1a's, but even in them, I'd prefer if they were all recoil operated or even primer setback operated. They could be, just no one is doing it and their recoil is being totally wasted when it could be utilized to operate the action. So much in the gun industry can be summed up in an old adage about the home construction industry: "People buy what builders build, and builders build what people buy". So with the exceptions of all too few truly innovative designs, not too much changes in major design in either Industry. How many AR and AK clones are out there? Now how many primer setback or long recoil operation CURRENT rifle or shotgun designs are out there? See? Like I said, the people buy what builders build, and builders build what people buy. As long as the public accepts (and buys) the same ole same ole, there is little incentive to change or innovate.

So to answer your question of: "What's the point?" (of my concept), is to have a hi capacity, box mag (or drum) fed long recoil operated shotgun, that is modified from an already existing tube fed design, that plenty of parts are available for, and that does not use a gas operated system where there is a piston and gas cylinder to have to clean. With the Remy 11 or Browning auto 5, all you need to do is swab the barrel and toothbrush the face of the bolt. That's it for normal maintenance cleaning without having to tear anything down, and most of the time you don't even have to clean the bolt face. I'm tired of having to disassemble the whole gas assembly on gas operated shotguns (or rifles) to clean them plus the gas system piston and cylinder put unnecessary weight on the gun that long recoil doesn't require, and inertia operation requires the shotgun to move in order to work.

There may be a time when someone has to prop up the gun butt against something immovable to where the gun can't move rearward. Then the inertia operated system will not function. Suppose a hunter having one arm injured by a bear or cougar was lying against a tree trying to use one hand to operate their inertia shotgun by bracing its butt against a tree....it wouldn't cycle. Same would be true for an injured cop using one hand/arm to brace an inertia operated shotgun's butt against something....it wouldn't cycle because the whole gun has to move rearward for the inertia operated action to work. They cannot be braced against something immovable. Inertia operation only works because your shoulder/body moves rearward with the gun.

Plus, being someone who likes to tinker with modifying AROUND already existing designs, it interests me to see what can be done with a modification around an already existing design. Like I did with modifying stocks of existing designs that led to me inventing the bumpfire stock back in 1996 that I patented in 2000. Like I did to modifying AROUND the existing Ruger 10/22 design to invent the watercooled version of the Ruger 10/22 that looks like a miniature Maxim or Browning 1917 MG and uses a crankfire trigger device and a 110 rd GSG drum (not in production, only my working prototypes). It's the tinkerer in me that looks at an existing design and considers if I can do something else with it by modifying around the existing design. My mention of using a vertical fore grip was just a stated option. Horizontal fore grip would be okay too. I was just mentioning the vertical one as an option. Personally, I'd PREFER a horizontal fore grip on my concept, just my preference for grip. But others might like a vertical one.

That's about the best I can explain regarding your question of:...."What's the point?".


.

[the possum]

OK. Carry on.

[agtman]

Huh?

[Bill Akins]

What is it you're confused about agtman?


.

[Scorch]

Bill
I am sure it would work. If you need to know what it would look like (albeit on a smaller scale), look at a Remington Model 8. Same long recoil mechanism, but box magazine fed.

ETA- I would not try to delete the mag tube, you will need it for the handguard and the recoil spring.

[Bill Akins]

Scorch wrote: "Bill I am sure it would work. If you need to know what it would look like (albeit on a smaller scale), look at a Remington Model 8. Same long recoil mechanism, but box magazine fed. ETA- I would not try to delete the mag tube, you will need it for the handguard and the recoil spring".

Thanks Scorch, I hope so. There are a couple of things I need to check out first to make absolutely sure it would work. Having to do with the underside of the bolt and the distance of the bolt above the shell in a box mag, as well as how the mag would fit into the receiver, as well as the sharp ledge on the barrel extension that would likely have to be beveled. But if those can be overcome, like you,...I also think it will work. Take another look at my concept pic. You will see that I don't need the mag tube for the recoil spring because in my concept the recoil spring has been moved onto the barrel negating the mag tube as the support for the recoil spring and the receiver area where the mag tube is removed can be used for a piece that projects out forward for a fore end hand guard/grip to be attached to. Check my first post's concept pic out again and you'll understand what I mean. Thanks for the tip on the Remy model 8, I'll be checking out its design.


.

[Bill Akins]

Scorch, thanks for your mention of not removing the loading tube. Because it got me to thinking. Yes I could remove the loading tube and move the recoil spring onto the barrel like it is in the Rem 8 & 81 rifles (that I checked out thanks to your tip). But I would still need a forwardly projecting piece (coming from the opening where the loading tube went into the receiver) to attach a lower fore end grip support to anyway. So you got me to thinking just how much weight would I save by removing the tube? Plus then I wouldn't have to remove the ring off the barrel and could use the barrel as is and keep the recoil spring on the loading tube as you suggested. Plus I wouldn't have to attach a bushing onto the front of the receiver that clears and goes around the barrel for the recoil spring to butt against nor have to create that other bushing that goes more forward on the barrel for the other end of the recoil spring. Plus I wouldn't have to create an upper handguard to protect against the recoil spring being on the barrel pinching a hand.

Plus I wouldn't have to make and attach an interior tapered sleeve onto the barrel for the bronze friction ring to have a straight surface to friction against (since the barrel is tapered). Plus I could cap off the rear of the loading tube and make a snap open cap on the end of the loading tube and use the loading tube to just store extra shells, to where I could snap open the cap on the end of the tube and dump the shells into my hand for loading into the box mag without having to have a side saddle rig on the receiver or slip on shell holder on the butt stock to refresh the box mag.

Since the addition of a higher capacity ammunition carrier would increase weight a lot, I was thinking the removal of the loading tube, its spring and follower would help offset some of that new weight. But the more I think about it, the more I think it isn't worth all the above trouble and modifications just to save that small amount of weight. Also by not changing out anything other than switching to box mag feed instead of tube feed, it would allow me to just concentrate on enlarging the bottom of the receiver for mag insertion and concentrating on the bolt to mag feed lips position and how to secure the mag.

So although yes I believe I could transfer the recoil spring to the barrel as in the Rem 8 & 81 rifles, I don't really have to. The main thing is to get it box mag fed.

So your simple mention of not removing it so I can have a piece to attach a fore arm hand grip to,....gave me pause for thought that made me realize it would simplify not only attaching a handguard (and I could use the original one without having to have an upper handguard to cover a recoil spring on the barrel too), but would simplify everything to the point to where I could just concentrate on how the mag goes in and attaches and how the relationship of the bolt to the mag's feed lips are. So thanks for that Scorch. At first I thought no, Scorch missed how I had transferred the recoil spring from the loading tube to the barrel. But even if you did, (and now I don't think you did), keeping everything the same except for installing a box mag sure simplifies things. The recoil spring on the barrel instead of the loading tube would work, but now I think it really isn't necessary to the overall goal of making the gun mag fed. Sometimes I get to thinking about a design modification and what some of what I come up with may work, but some wasn't really necessary to the end goal here of box mag feed.

And I did check out and study the Rem model 8 & 81 rifle design you mentioned Scorch. I was struck with how much it mirrored my mag fed Rem 11 concept with the recoil spring around the barrel. You're right Scorch. It's almost identically the same thing, same long recoil action just in a mag fed rifle instead of a shotgun.

The next thing I'm going to do is get that old stripped Remy 11 receiver I have and pick up a Saiga mag and then start looking at how the bolt slides in the receiver to see how the bottom of the bolt could pick up and chamber a shell out of the Saiga mag and how much milling it will take for the mag to fit into the bottom of the receiver. So it's nix on removing the loading tube and use it for fore end support and extra shell storage, nix on transferring the recoil spring to the barrel, and straight on to looking at box mag feeding it.

Sure simplified things....all just from your mention of not omitting the tube that got me to thinking about a host of things that keeping it would simplify. Now the loading tube can just be a support for a lower hand guard and a storage area for more shells plus is the support for the recoil spring as before. Thanks Scorch, your simple mention of not omitting the tube really got me to thinking about a host of things which caused me to greatly simplify the re-design. Would my removing the tube and transferring the recoil spring to the barrel save weight? Perhaps a little, but not worth the trouble and mods necessary to do. So now it's straight onto dealing with the box mag and bolt and leaving everything the same with the exception of removing the loading tube's interior spring, spring retaining piece and follower and plugging the rear of the loading tube and making a snap open cap on the other end for removal of extra shells storage.


.

[Bill Akins]

And my previous post brings me to considering 12 gauge stick mags for use in the Remy 11.

One thing I'm wondering about, is since Surefire makes a double stack fat body 60 and 100 rd stick mag for the AR-15, and since various manufacturers make a 10 rd stick mag for the Saiga 12 gauge, then why doesn't anyone make a double stack fat body 20 rd stick mag for the Saiga 12 gauge?

Here's the 60 and 100 rd stick mags for the AR-15.





And here's a Saiga single stack 10 rd stick mag.



I am wondering instead of making a Saiga drum mag that has a lot of wasted space in the middle of the drum, and that sticks out a lot to the side of the gun on both sides, and also still projects downward a lot,....instead why doesn't someone instead simply make a double stack fat body stick mag that would hold twenty 12 gauge shells? It would seem to make sense.



.

[Bill Akins]

Ah, it looks like someone else was thinking the same thing I was about double stack 12 gauge stick mags too.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...gazine-patent/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSysoAK9ZTA

The first link was from 2012, and the second link was from 2014.

I wonder when or if this MD Arms double stack 12 gauge stick mag will be available.


.

[Gunplummer]

I really have not kept up with shotguns, but back when bolt action magazine feed shotguns were common, they sucked. They were very finicky about weight distribution with just 3-4 shells. I did watch the video and am somewhat amazed. Apparently the Russians can do something right.

[agtman]

Good gawd, that's confusing. Like trying to breed an AR with a shotty.

[kozak6]

Obama banned the Saiga from import.

Apparently, it's also tricky to get rimmed cartridges to feed through a double stack.

[44 AMP]

Apparently, it's also tricky to get rimmed cartridges to feed through a double stack.

Its not impossible, the .303 British comes to mind. (both the SMLE and the Bren gun). Note, however, that the magazines for those guns do not taper to a single feed point like the Hi Power 9mm mag.

Those fat body mags shown look to me like there would be issues with rimlock if you used a rimmed case in them.

12 ga. isn't like a tapered rifle or pistol round, its essentially a flat ended cylinder, with a projecting rim, so you have both problems to overcome when you are looking at feeding from a box magazine.

A double stack box magazine in 12ga. would be thinner than a drum, but its still going to be wider than your gun (unless your gun is a SxS! )