1100 Comp Mstr Vs. Sx2 Pract. Vs. Browning Gold?

[DHart]

Scooter... thanks for the reply.

This brings up a question for Jerry with regard to his "Dominator" package where the barrel is cut to 18" and the long mag tube is installed (not an extension, I believe, but a new, longer tube?):

Jerry... when making a shotgun into your "Dominator" package, with 18" barrel, have you found that lightening the carrier spring and going from a 3" to 3.5" recoil spring (presuming the gun is a 3"er) is pretty much required to maintain reliability? Whether the gun be a SX2 or a Gold?

Makes me wonder if FN, when creating their SX2-based SLP (self-loading police) model with 18" barrel and long mag tube went with different carrier and recoil springs to balance out the system.... anyone have any idea on that? You would think they'd have to in order to offer a reliable shotgun of this type.

[George Post]

I tried someones CM 1100 and it seemed too heavy out front compared to my 870 pump gun, (extented mag tube) How is the weight and balance of the CM 1100 vs. the SX2 Practical?

Thanks

George

[DHart]

I've been doing a lot of shooting with my new 1100CM these last five days or so... up to about 100 rounds so far... gotta say I love the gun... it's a really smooth, easy shooter and stone reliable with shells 3.25 dram 1 1/8 oz or better. I haven't cleaned it since it's first cleaning before shooting it. I'm storing it with the bolt locked back for now to soften the spring a little. As the round count climbs, the lighter loads are running reliably now. I think this is to be expected from such guns... the Practical as well. The Practical does come with two gas pistons (one for light loads and another for heavy loads) which makes tailoring the performance easy on the Practical. The 1100CM doesn't offer such an option.

The 1100CM action is dependent on the mag tube spring forcing the shells briskly into the receiver, so the mag tube spring is a very important part of the reliability... if you get an 1100CM, it may be wise to replace the mag spring periodically to be certain it hasn't lost valuable tension.

I was checking out a Practical yesterday and it feels great.. very similar to the 1100CM... but it felt, perhaps, a bit lighter, but I'm not sure it is. Of course a little extra weight makes for a little less felt recoil. They're both great guns.

I will be buying a Practical to join my 1100CM. If I were to have just one of them, I'd probably go with the Practical as I am of the impression the SX2 is much faster and probably a little more durable over the long haul. I don't NEED the extra speed, but the potential for more long term durability is nice. Not that I don't love the 1100CM.

Here's an interesting analysis of shooting these guns at speed...

http://www.multigun.com/speedsg.html

Edited October 11, 2005 by DHart

[AH6IP]

DHart-

I have never done one with a 18" barrel. mine are all 22" +/-. for reliability sake, a "tuned" 3.5" action spring is the heat(not needed for the SX2). but the "tuning" is the key!!

Lightening the "carrier" spring??? are you referring to the latch spring?

Edited October 12, 2005 by AH6IP

[DHart]

Jerry... sorry, I meant the recoil spring. So you're saying you go with a tuned 3.5" spring in the 3" Golds, but don't need to with the 3" or 2 3/4" SX2's?

I was just wondering if going to an 18" barrel would require different springs than staying with, say, a 22" barrel. I ask because I have an FN SLP coming in the next day or so. They have an 18" barrel and an SX2 action (not sure if it's a 2 3/4" or 3"), so I was wondering if FN would have modified the springs a little to compensate for the 18" barrel.

I also bought a Practical Mk 1 today, so I can compare springs with the FN SLP when I get it.

I've succumbed to a shotgun addiction, but at this point (with five) I think I'm pretty much stabilized and well on the road to recovery!

I put a box of 25 Estate Heavy Game loads through the Practical tonight and I am very impressed with the gun. Much as I like the 1100CM, if I had to give up the 1100CM or the Practical, I'd keep the Practical. No really big differences, just some things I like better about the Winny. I'm really eager to see what the little 18" FN SLP is like... that puppy should be really cool indeed.

George.... the weights of the 1100CM and Practical seem about the same, as does the "out front" weight feel. The 1100CM is just a tad shorter overall than the Practical. Balance wise they seem nearly identical. They both feel really good in my hands.

Edited October 12, 2005 by DHart

[Scooter]

Man someone has some money to burn, 3 shotguns in under a month. I wish I had that kind of money.

[DHart]

Scooter... sometimes working really hard and running your own business for a few decades has some rewards!

Edited October 12, 2005 by DHart

[DHart]

Here's my preliminary comparison of the 1100CM to the SX2 Practical, made at a very early stage of use:

After getting my 1100CM, I was very jazzed about that shotgun (and I still am), but now that I've got a Practical to compare it to, I'm really wowed. They're both great shotguns, but the Practical Mk I is really a slick machine with some features which give it the advantage.

This afternoon I bought the Winchester and disassembled it down to the trigger group, cleaned out the preservative, lubed it up with FP-10 (my favorite cleaner/lubricant/protectant) then went out on my property and proceeded to push a box of 25 Estate Heavy Game loads (3.25 dram 1 1/8 oz. #6 shot) through the gun. Not a bobble or stumble of any kind and at least half the box was shooting as rapidly as I could... the gun just flies and loves doing it! It's early yet, but perfect reliability using the lighter load gas piston so far. I think I'll stick with 3.25 dram 1 1/8 oz loads for the first 200 rounds or so as a break-in before I try the really light loads. My intended use for the gun is to be one of my home defense shotguns, so full pop 00 Buck will be what I load it with for "duty".

Here are some of the features of the Practical that I prefer over the 1100CM:

• the bolt release is easier to access and nicer to operate;

• the mag extension (permanent) is much smoother and more securely done and much better protected (it's inside the outer protective sleeve that's visible)... and it doesn't require a securing bracket. If the aluminum protective sleeve over the mag tube gets dinged or damaged, it can be replaced in about 5 seconds, just unscrew the mag cap and slide the sleeve off the gun - the extension itself stays in place and operational. The design of the entire mag extension on this gun is a master-touch, in my view.

• the built-in, cantilevered rail is really nice to add a holographic or other sight with no further ado (looks cool too);

• the flip down rear sight is very useful, convenient, and well designed

• the ability to use different gas pistons makes for great flexibility;

• no rubber o-rings to have to replace;

• the SX2 has the front sling attachment on the front of the forearm vs. having to use the barrel/tube bracket on the 1100CM (I don't like the bracket).

• the SX2 is easier to load... the carrier/elevator is a breeze to push up out of the way... with the 1100CM you have to make sure the shell pushes the little "release" lever which is nestled inside the carrier.

• the gun is designed to operate at amazing speed, capable of 5 shots in just 1/2 second - you can potentially empty the gun of it's 9 rounds into an attacker before the first empty hull even hits the deck! That's mind boggling defensive power in my view. (This speed isn't really "necessary", but it's sure nice to have it, if you want it!)

None of these differences in the Practical, taken individually, are necessarily huge, but they all add up to make for a superior shotgun. Add to that the presumed longer life of the components (1100 parts are not known for longevity - from what I hear anyway) and that makes the SX2 just a head above the 1100CM in my book.

Things I prefer with the 1100CM:

• Slightly shorter LOP (about 13.5" vs. 14" with the Practical)

• Slightly shorter overall length (the 1100CM is nearly an inch shorter than the Practical)

• The forearm feels more solid and not "hollow" whereas the forearm on the Practical feels just a bit less solid and has a little "hollowness" feel to it.

• The entire gun has a solidness to it that just edges out the overall feel of the SX2... and I think most of this lies in the solid feel of the stock & forearm, nothing to do with the receiver.

• The fiber optic front sight is a tad larger and easier to pick up.

Personally I'm happy with both the 1100CM and the Practical... they're both great guns. But if I had to give one up, I'd think I'd give the nod to keeping the Practical!

Edited October 12, 2005 by DHart