| Author |
Message |
| < 16ga. Ammunition & Reloading ~ Another Dumb ? |
|
 Posted:
Sat Jul 25, 2015 4:37 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 1946
Location: Central CT
|
|
| Well, to be honest.......I have a secret wish that Benelli make a 16 Gauge Super Sport. |
_________________
Mark |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 25, 2015 6:12 am
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Feb 2015
Posts: 267
Location: New Braunfels TX
|
|
| Dogchaser37 wrote: |
|
Well, to be honest.......I have a secret wish that Benelli make a 16 Gauge Super Sport.
|
And while they're at it an Ultra Light |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 25, 2015 7:48 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2005
Posts: 328
|
|
If the target games were to include a 16 ga.
The gun would still be an overweight 2x4.
It would not be a svelt upland hunting machine.
No, my wet dream is to have Winchester bring back the compression hull. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:34 am
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Posts: 2124
Location: Hudson,Wy
|
|
| Or for Activ to be resurrected. They only made compression hulls and the capacity was great. |
_________________
Only catch snowflakes on your tongue AFTER the birds fly south for the winter... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 25, 2015 12:22 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts
|
|
| Roadkill wrote: |
16GG, you are so right. A little while back, Remingtoons re-introduced the 16ga. They made them on 12ga frames and bored the barrels from 12ga blanks. They ended up heavier than 12ga guns and handled like the proverbial 'pig on a snow shovel'. Since they did not sell well, due to their poor design, they opined that there was no demand for 16ga guns and discontinued them. Had they used the old-style light contoured barrels I believe the guns would have been a success but we will never know.
It is sad to see a once-great gun manufacturer taken over by bean-counters instead of knowledgeable gun people. I will never again buy a new Remingtoon product.
|
There are times I really hate being right. This is one. However, I don't believe Remington upper management sees ruining the 16 gauge Model 1100 as a mistake. It's not the first time the boys from "Big Green" have taken a shot at our favorite gauge. It might not be the last either.
Remington is obviously managed by executives who adhere to the "command and control" school of market management. They believe in destroying the marketing image of any product they can't command and control. They believe the 16 gauge is a relic which continues to get in the way of and to possibly threaten the much more lucrative 12 and 20 gauge guns and ammo market they labored so very hard to create and nurture in post-WWII era America.
The latest ponderous 16 ga edition of the Remington 1100 is just one example. Refusing to offer the R16 wad is another. Remington still produces the R16 wad for use in manufactering their 16 ga. RGL ammo. They simply refuse to sell the R16 wad as a reloading component. Logic tells us those reasons can't have much to do with not making a profit. How costly would it be to bag up and market some surplus R16 wads? Remington still offers the SP16 wad don't they? We should ask ourselves why--especially now that other wad manufacturers like Downrange and Claybuster are adding lighter capacity 16 gauge wads to their products.
The 16 ga. RGL/Express hulls are positively the shoddiest hulls in the whole Game Load line. If you doubt this, then simply examine and reload some of the latest 12 and 20 gauge Game/Sport Load hulls. In comparison, the 12 and 20 gauge hulls are made of better materials and are much better for reloading. Again, we should ask why. The head honchos at "Big Green" have their reasons, but they aren't talking.
Logic tells me the head honchos at Remington don't want their mainstream customers to know what we know; i.e., that given the right loads, a relatively light weight 16 gauge shotgun is almost as effective as a 12 and more effective than a 20, as well as being just as pleasant (or more pleasant) to shoot and to carry. If the truth were ever to get out on a large scale, Remington's business could be hurt. Better to surpress the truth than face it. At least that is how the boys at "Big Green" Think.
Luckily for us, there are other guns and ammo manufactures who don't agree with Big Green. I'll take my business there. Perhaps we all should. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jul 25, 2015 2:43 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 09 Dec 2009
Posts: 1370
Location: Cheyenne, Wy
|
|
Might as well be me. I don't believe that Remington is out to destroy the 16 ga anymore than they are contemplating a flight to the moon.
The bean counters know where the money is, and being in business to make money, they cater to current trends. You will not remain in business long in this global economy if you don't.
If there were a surge by millions of young shooters demanding a light weight 16 ga pump shotgun, THEN, by damn, you would see Remington respond, and quite quickly.
Sadly, this is not the case.
Dale |
_________________
One man with courage makes a majority.
...Andrew Jackson... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sun Jul 26, 2015 11:42 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
Posts: 601
Location: Virginia
|
|
| WyoChukar wrote: |
|
Here is the deal. The barrels required their own tooling. The magazine tube likewise. The receiver could easily have been built from the 20 ga. frame which is capable of withstanding recoil stress and pressures of the 3" 20ga.
|
The magazine tube on the 1100 16 gauge is the same diameter as the 12 gauge. The only difference is the bolt and barrel. As for using the LW/LT frame to build a 16, perhaps you're not aware that Remington designed it for the 28 and .410. The 20 gauge was added after the fact and eventually had to be redesigned with a long-tang barrel because the short tang magnum barrels were cracking the receiver.
You might take solace in the fact that the full-size 1100 frame is the same size as the 16-gauge 11-48, so it's actually smaller than it could be!
Dan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:42 pm
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Posts: 2124
Location: Hudson,Wy
|
|
What about the 870? I actually thought that the gripes were about the 16ga. Wingmaster making another showing. Heck it could be both. I was talking about an 870 offering. It surprises me that Remington would use the 12 ga. mag tube, seems a bit sloppy but it must have worked.
Personally, I don't ever want an auto 16. Losing hulls in the tall grass or between rocks is bad enough with a 12, losing 16ga. or 28 ga. hulls really bothers me. My first shotgun was an 1100 12 ga. and the ejected hulls were tough to find in much of the terrain I hunt. At least with a pump, the final shot does not have to result in a hull flung haphazardly distant. |
_________________
Only catch snowflakes on your tongue AFTER the birds fly south for the winter... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Jul 27, 2015 5:13 am
|
|
|
Joined: 24 Jun 2013
Posts: 2066
Location: canandaigua - western n.y. (formerly deerhunter)
|
|
| WYO , what few birds I get to shoot at per yr , I'm more than happy to lose a few empties . Shoot lots of targets though and the Pink Panther wears an 1100 clip on catcher , and it's Red Headed sister has one of the pop up wire catchers . both work well . |
_________________
Molly sez AArrrooooooah ! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Jul 27, 2015 9:43 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts
|
|
| Cheyenne08 wrote: |
Might as well be me. I don't believe that Remington is out to destroy the 16 ga anymore than they are contemplating a flight to the moon.
The bean counters know where the money is, and being in business to make money, they cater to current trends. You will not remain in business long in this global economy if you don't.
If there were a surge by millions of young shooters demanding a light weight 16 ga pump shotgun, THEN, by damn, you would see Remington respond, and quite quickly.
Sadly, this is not the case.
Dale
|
I understand where you are coming from Dale, and I'd agree except for one train of thought which nags at me. If the execs at "Big Green" did not see a profitable market for the 16ga 1100/870 Models, then why would they bother to offer so ponderous a version of one? Why offer a version which surely won't garnish any praise from the folks who might buy one and then spread the word of what good products Remington makes? All they've accomplished is to appear like they've not a clue as to what they are doing--that is unless they had other objectives for the longer term in mind.
And why bother to offer the SP16 wad and not the R16 wad? They make both. Again, it makes no sense unless there are other benefits to it.
I doubt the Remington execs could be so stupid. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm giving them way to much credit, but there it is. I just can't quite wrap my head around it. Maybe I should just accept that we can't fix stupid.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Jul 27, 2015 10:28 am
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 09 Dec 2009
Posts: 1370
Location: Cheyenne, Wy
|
|
16gg, I have no answers to your questions.
Maybe the bean counters at Remington don't give a big fat rat's ass what the engineers at Remington propose, they tell them to "Use what you have, we are not putting any money into a gun which sells 1% of the total shotgun ammo".
AND maybe, 16gg they ARE DUMB! 
Dale |
_________________
One man with courage makes a majority.
...Andrew Jackson... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Aug 01, 2015 12:03 pm
|
|
|
Member
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 6535
Location: massachusetts
|
|
| On that note, I offer this. Nature's solution to the problem of dealing with the crazy, the stupid, and the slow makes those problems self-solving ones. Then we humans came to think nature's way is a bit too rough, so we got involved. Doesn't look like our methods and solutions are working too well so far. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
