close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

New wingmaster: Can anyone spot whats wrong with this picture?

Discussion in 'High Power Club' started by my762buzz, Jul 30, 2010.

  1. aippi

    aippi

    1,726
    18
    Jun 12, 2009
    You are showing an Express matte finish magazine tube with the Express retainer. Since the pictures are pasted and not one complete picuture, I don't get the point. Are you saying your wingmaster came with an Express magazine tube. If so, did this come from the Factory this way and when?
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010

  2. my762buzz

    my762buzz

    1,551
    0
    Mar 21, 2007
    Have another look.

    I bought it new in the box today from a major sporting chain store. Is the forearm tube not suppose to look like that?
    I always read and heard that wingmasters do not have mag tube dimples. When I got home and opened the box, I was quite shocked.
    The crack in the wood was surprise enough, but the dimples really made me wonder what's going on here.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
  3. my762buzz

    my762buzz

    1,551
    0
    Mar 21, 2007
    The real heart breaker. A molded extractor.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. my762buzz

    my762buzz

    1,551
    0
    Mar 21, 2007
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2010
  5. aippi

    aippi

    1,726
    18
    Jun 12, 2009
    Yes that is a MIM extractor that comes on the Express, your first pictures did not show that close enough. If you mean the split in the center of the inside of the forend, that is the way it is made so that is normal.

    Call Remington Monday and find out what the heck is going on
     
  6. Z71bill

    Z71bill

    15,576
    2,678
    Feb 19, 2007
    Texas
    I have shot hundreds and hundreds of rounds through my 870 with the factory MIM extractor. Never any problem.

    I figured - I might as well have a spare extractor in my parts inventory so I ordered a NON MIM one.

    I compared the two side by side - expecting to see wear on the MIM part - but is exactly the same size - and shows no wear - not even on the tip that contacts the shell.

    I went ahead and installed it - but would not have a problem using the MIM part.

    I ordered it from Midway - since I have a C&R on file with them it was only $11 - other wise $14.79.

    http://www.midwayusa.com/Search/#138720____-_1-2-4_8-16-32
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2010
  7. GlocksterPaulie

    GlocksterPaulie Perfectionist

    3,271
    0
    Dec 16, 2003
    Damned if I know
    I would rather buy an old 870 at a GS than buy a new one today. Better steel & wood back then. The grip on the stock is much better on the older models also, the new one feels like a brick.

    I have a couple from the mid 70's that are still going strong.

    Paulie
     
  8. Z71bill

    Z71bill

    15,576
    2,678
    Feb 19, 2007
    Texas

    I know of a ~~1990 Wingmaster that is for sale - $250

    The seller says he shot 1 box of shells through it - and it is in like new condition.

    It is listed as 2 3/4 inch field grade - modified choke - I am assuming a fixed choke.

    I was considering buying it - have not actually seen it

    I was wondering if the 28 inch spare barrel I have would fit the 1990 Wingmaster. I think yes. :dunno:

    My barrel is a 2 3/4 or 3 inch with Rem choke.

    If I swap the barrel does that automatically allow the gun to shoot 3 inch shells?
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2010
  9. my762buzz

    my762buzz

    1,551
    0
    Mar 21, 2007
    I tried a 870 express barrel on the my new wingmaster and it fit just fine.

    I'm not really sure about using 3 inch shells with a receiver that came with a 2 3/4 only barrel. There is a warning, however, with barrels able to shoot 3 1/2 shells to not shoot 3 1/2 while they are on a non-super magnum receiver.
     
  10. glock2619

    glock2619 Work in Progres

    1,031
    3
    Jan 18, 2006
    Rapid City, SD

    No. The ejectors are different from a MAGNUM marked receiver to a receiver that is not marked MAGNUM. However, your remchoke barrel will work just fine for 2.75" shells. If you were looking to get rid of your remchoke barrel.......:whistling:

    Edit: Tough to go wrong with an old Wingmaster. Even more tough to go wrong with an old Wingmaster in almost like-new condition for $250.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  11. my762buzz

    my762buzz

    1,551
    0
    Mar 21, 2007
    Mine came from Remington with a 3 inch chamber and no magnum on the receiver. I just cycled a few 3 inch shells and they ejected fine. I can't see a reason why it won't shoot 3 inch shells. I guess Remington may have two types of wingmaster receivers.
     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2010
  12. glock2619

    glock2619 Work in Progres

    1,031
    3
    Jan 18, 2006
    Rapid City, SD
    Hmmm. I'm guessing for several years now, they have been making nothing but 3" compatible receivers (other than the super mags), negating the need to mark them magnum. But if you look at the older ones, they were specifically marked MAGNUM to be compatible with 3" chamber barrels.

    I guess what I was trying to say is that if it was an older 870 with a 2.75" marked barrel and the receiver isn't marked MAGNUM, just adding a 3" chambered barrel will not make it a 3" ready gun. The ejectors WERE different between those two types of receivers-but as far as I know that was the only difference. In your case, it's a new production gun with a 3" marked chamber-it would definitely be a 3" gun.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2010
  13. Hauptmann6

    Hauptmann6

    4,249
    119
    May 22, 2002
    Portage, MI
    DO IT!!!

    Yes, it should interchange.

    And I think so but why bother?
     
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2012
  14. DJ Niner

    DJ Niner Moderator

    15,524
    1,151
    Feb 13, 2001
    North-Central USA
    If a 3" chambered barrel were installed, the older 2.75" receivers would usually feed and fire a 3" shell, but between the farther-forward-mounted ejector and the shorter ejection port, the fired 3" empty shell (which was about 3.5" long with the unfolded crimp sticking out the front) usually would not eject.