I bought a 870 express magnum awhile ago and just picked up a 2rd wilson mag extension. Anyway I can't use the follower that cme with it because it doesn't fit right. There's two little dimples in my tube that stop it from working it's way down..

I don't want to go file them out because I don't know if that will fix the problem or if it's my only problem.. Anybody else have this?

OK to drill or file out the dimples, which are present on virtually all express 870's - apparently only to discourage the addition of a magazine extension.  

Remington has a long history of political correctness, notably the "law enforcement only" folding stock.

There is a tool to swage them out.  Most don't bother with the expense.

eh.. they outsmarted me with that.. I'll break out the dremel or file tomorrow and take care of it. WE'LL SEE WHO HAS THE LAST LAUGH NOW REMINGTON

Thanks.

use the dremel, it's easier.

Fix is simple - with a 1/4" drill bit in the drillpress, drill out the dimples.  Clean the burrs from inside the tube and touchup with cold blue.BHP9

Have a dremel, but no drillpress.. Looks like I've got a little project now.

I used a dremel to gring them off, then used a polishing head and some polishing rough to smooth it out. Feeds like a champ.

FWIW the story as I have heard it relating to the dimples is that it was a cost saving measure rather than an abrogation of anyone's rights.


My .02


96Ag

cost saving? how is two BB sized punches a cost saving mesure? please explain that to me!

There probably is a guy at remington, who is a union member.  He has been the "hole dimplier" at Remington Arms for 19 years, and they only need to keep him 1 more year to retire. Rather than lay him off, and Pay for his unemployment, they would rather keep him the extra year.  So they found a place on the 870 for him to dimple?  Sounds crazy, bit Ive seen worse in the 10 years I spent in the aircraft industry.

Here's why the Express magazine assembly with the dimples is cheaper than the older style assembly.

The old style assembly has a steel cup washer to retain the spring, a small spring-loaded plunger in the front face of the barrel support ring, and a milled magazine cap.

The Express style has a plastic spring retainer, no spring and plunger, and a fabricated mag cap.

Bottom line: As unlikely as it sounds, you can make MANY retainers from moulded plastic for the price of a steel cup washer that has to be finished.

The little plunger and spring is an assembly that requires a human's time to drop the spring and plunger into the hole, stake it in place, and check it for proper function.

The spring costs money.  Springs are "expensive".

The Express's dimples are punched in by an automated machine at the same time the threads are formed.  No extra cost.

The old style mag cap is milled steel, and requires a number of machine operations to make, including cutting the numerous locking notches in the outer ring.

The Express cap is a casting, with "teeth" that are actually burrs, turned up by a cutter.

These little differences on the old style cost a surprisingly higher price to make than the Express.

Plastic costs less than finished steel.

The human labor to install the spring and plunger cost BIG money. How many spring and plunger assemblies can a worker install in one hour?  

How much does that persons labor cost per hour, (including wages, vacation, insurance, medical, etc).

How many plastic retainers can an automated moulding machine make in one hour?

How many mag caps can be mass-casted and finished in one hour?

How many mag caps can a milling machine make from bar stock in one hour?

What costs is human labor.  Anything that eliminates the human touch, reduces price.
A drop-in plastic retainer system costs considerably less to make, and lowers the customer price.

Thanks for the backup faris