What is wrong with Mossberg?

[MCgunner]

I guess that strap on the pump handle is supposed to fight muzzle climb? Sheesh, where's the flashlight and bayonet? How could you defend yourself without a flashlight and bayonet? Bwaaaaa, ha, ha, ha.......

Being serious for a minute, Mossbergs are not very ergonomic with a pistol grip. You have to remove your hand to kick the safety off, being tang mounted. I love the tang safety feature on Mossbergs, but they're not compatible with a pistol grip. But, then, I'm not very compatible with pistol grips on shotguns, either, and shooting lefty, love the tang safety.

I'll never understand why anyone would want rifle sights on a home defense shotgun, either. A bead and rib is SO much faster. Try wing shooting with rifle sights. There's a reason wing shooters don't use rifle sights, speed. You point a shotgun, you don't aim it. It's an extension of your body. You don't so much think about aiming as you point the gun while looking down the rib. If the gun fits right, it'll come to the eye every time you raise it. I can see the sights for the slug hunter, but for home defense, they just slow you down IMHO. Also, you can easily point a shotgun with a bead/rib and proper fit in low light. You can't see rifle sights to aim in low light, thus the flashlight becomes necessary. As to target identification, if the BG breaks my locked bedroom door in, I don't need to identify him, he's a bad guy.

But, then, whadda I know? I have a side by side for home defense. All the tactical ninjas tell me that's suicide. But, I figure if I can kill doves at a 2 shells per bird rate when I'm on my game with it and I know it like it were my arm, how hard can hitting a 200 lb man in my bedroom door be? I figure I'm more deadly with that gun than a tacticool ninja that shoots a static paper target twice a year and picks it up to get the cobwebs out of the barrel now and then.

 

[frankd4]

About 32 years ago I bought a Mossberg 500 for I think eighty nine dollars at Woolco I have shot Doves, Bunnies, Deer and even a black bear and just last weekend used it in a three gun match; If the darn thing ever quits I would not hesitate to buy another one.

 

[RandKL]

I guess that strap on the pump handle is supposed to fight muzzle climb?

No, it's meant to keep your hand from sliding all around on the forearm during fast shooting. Give it ten years or so and Remington will put one on their guns, too, and claim it to be their "newest invention".

Mossbergs are not very ergonomic with a pistol grip. You have to remove your hand to kick the safety off, being tang mounted

It takes literally twenty seconds to replace your Mossy trigger group with a Mav 88 cross bolt safety group. On the 500, you have that option. Can you think of any other firearms that can do that?

http://http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=32&section=products

The 930 conventional stock above....in that pic, I don't see the probs you seem to be having, Badge. Sorry, sir. Stocks are made to suit the largest majority of potential users, though. That's why the stock length and drop are almost always identical between diff makes and models. If the factory stock doesn't fit you, replace it.

I, personally, can't stand Pachmayr or rubber pistol grips at all. My hands are large so the finger spaces never let me grip one comfortably. I don't proclaim Smith and Wesson to be deficite in their designs simply because one doesn't fit me, though. I'd be wasting a lot of time on nothing if I did.

Remember, it's always better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.

Peace.

rich

 

[Badger Arms]

I'll have to say that the complete lack of understanding about how a shotgun fits and cheek weld is really disheartening.

The cheek bone is supposed to rest on the stock, not the jaw. In order to see the sights, I've got to rest my jaw bone beside the stock. Absolutely no potential for accuracy there as one of the three points of a sighting systerm (your eye ball) is floating with no skeletal support.

Others might be cool with that or ignorant of that fact, but it's their money to spend. If you're cool with inaccuracy and mismatched stock and sights on a gun you're paying over $500 for, frankly I do not understand you.

 

[earlthegoat2]

The fact is that apparently Mossberg doesnt care about their stocks inadequacies and still continues to sell boatloads of shotguns. I understand how shotguns are supposed to fit and I understand that Mossbergs dont and I understand that there is no universal stock size for manufacturers to all use so everyone can have a perfectly fitted shotgun.

Mossberg is worse than other manufacturers with their stocks. They are also one of the most inexpensive for what you get. Quality and price are mutually exclusive.

The horse is dead.

 

[inSight-NEO]

As an example: My Benelli SNT w/GR sights = right on w/SteadyGrip full length stock w/PG, yet quite off when using "standard" Comfortech stock. Do I blame the stock or the manufacturer? Since Benelli hardly, IMHO, makes crap, I blame the stock (based on my physicality).

Different stocks, different strokes, different folks. Not all stock/sight configs will prove to be ideal to all who buy a shotgun.

For me, now speaking of my Mossberg, the bead front sight/standard speedfeed stock combo proved to be an ideal configuration. If I were inclined to go with iron sights, the "fit" would require alterations to the stock or possibly another stock altogether. Does this make me upset? Nah. If I wanted more than bead sights to begin with, I would have bought such an equipped weapon. In addition, if I didnt like the initial combo offered, I either a) would have planned on acquiring the necessary stock and/or having the necessary modifications made or b) bought another weapon.

You cant claim a manufacturer is "crap" simply based on the idea that their weapons do not fit you. If you find, for instance, that the Remingtons or Benellis fit you better, buy one of those instead. Simple as that. But, the Mossberg is a good gun for the price...a very good gun for the price.

Semi-auto shotguns aside (as I have no vast experience with such SGs), I have yet to hold a shotgun that has a "rattle free" forend.

One in particular had this cheesy ATI stock on it. I tried to reach the safety and I couldn't do it without taking my strong hand completely off the grip.

Is Mossberg to blame here? Honestly?

 

[MCgunner]

I blame God for misfitting shotgun stocks. He's the one that gave me these danged high cheek bones.

 

[Badger Arms]

I guess they don't teach stock-fit at gunmaking school anymore (where is that school anyway?). The reason a gun stock is sloped is because of sight picture. Each individual has a different cheek weld and one can move it forward or back to compensate for differences. Straight-combed stocks are difficult, but usually designed for a certain sight picture. Adjustable-comb stocks are more expensive, but better for two reasons. First, individual shooters can find the OPTIMUM comb height for perfect, repeatable sight picture. Second, the stock doesn't kick your cheek with each shot as a sloped comb does.

Stocks are only as good as their design. But, if you've got a sloping comb where the HIGHEST setting won't even get you within 3/4" of the sightline, that's a foul. And for those who've said I'm just trying to plug Remington, both Remington and Mossberg feel exactly the same to me with bead sights or vent ribs. I guess I prefer the vent rib as I can get my face further down the stock and that's more comfortable to me. Mechanically, I've got some significant criticisms of both Remington AND Mossberg... but Ithaca's are PERFECTION!!!

 

[inSight-NEO]

Adjustable-comb stocks are more expensive, but better for two reasons.

The Benelli offers this, but yes...its expensive. Im guessing their "SteadyGrip" PG stock must be "slope combed" as this stock tend to allow for optimal sighting when using GR sights. Regardless, Im fine with the bead sight on my Mossberg...well, for HD anyway.

 

[MCgunner]

Well, I adjusted my Mossy with a coke bottle, by cutting shims out of it. It now fits me like it was made for me. I used my Winchester as a pattern. That thing fits me like it was tailor made right out of the box. H&H couldn't have done it better, prettier, but not better. The Mossy, when I got it, was more like OJ's glove. But, shimming it made it another firearm.

I don't know about all these tacticool stocks, though. I think if I wanted to bastardize a shotgun like that, I'd go to the aftermarket. Folks seem to think Knox is the cat's meow, though I'm not sure how many tacticool types know anything about shotgun fit. Not as important as picante rails and flash lights and such. LOL

 

[Smitty in CT]

If your cheek weld is a problem, Mossberg offers a higher comb "Monte Carlo" stock.... problem solved....

 

[oneounceload]

Badger - just sounds like THAT stock doesn't fit YOU. try taking the sights off then - you don't need them for HD anyway, replace that POS plastic stock with a nice wood one that fits....but then, that doesn't appear to be what you want to hear

 

[Badger Arms]

Not going to beat a dead horse anymore. If you didn't read all the messages, sorry.

 

[oneounceload]

Whatever....offered an opinion

 

[inSight-NEO]

though I'm not sure how many tacticool types know anything about shotgun fit.

Interesting comment. However, some of us "tacticool" lovers out there actually understand, appreciate and implement the various ideals regarding proper "shotgun fit." Besides, Ive met several "traditionalists" who know very little, if anything, about shotguns or their various configurations. They believe that just because they have the latest, pimped out Remington that they can hit anything. Bah...Therefore, it can go both ways.

It never ceases to amaze me how many individuals balk when it comes to anything "tactical." To me, "tactical" is merely a word...maybe "special purpose" would be a better, more appropriate term relating to such weaponry.

In terms of the Knoxx stock (I do not have one, however)...nothing wrong with that. This stock (given the appropriate model) can readily allow for LOP adjustment on the fly. How is this a bad thing? Traditional? Maybe not. Useful and appropriate, given certain situations? Yeah...why not? Its 2009...must everything always be steeped in tradition?

 

[MCgunner]

Knox used to make a traditional (sort of) stock, plastic, that had little shock absorbers in it. It was supposed to really reduced felt recoil. I don't think they make it in a traditional stock anymore, just offer it in the PG stuff. They say it's really nice. You need the help with slugs, especially, in a typical light shotgun.

Ive met several "traditionalists" who know very little, if anything, about shotguns or their various configurations.

Yeah, I agree, I know a ton of the redneck hunter types that ain't got a clue. You really get into the fit thing in the clay games. I've never shot a lot of clays, just local stuff with our club shoots and now and then I'll buy some clays to bust. But, I listen to the clays guys about proper gun fit. They can quantify such things with improvements in their scores, if nothing else. It was only several years ago that I came to appreciate fit and I've been hunting with shotguns since the age of 9. This site has helped MY scores a lot, too, on birds. Oh, I can't say I didn't appreciate a good fitting gun as my Winchester is awesome and that's why I loved it, but I learned about the shimming thing right here in this forum by posting about how I'd like to get a stock maker fit my Mossberg. "Well, son, you don't need no stinkin' stock maker......."

 

[poor_richard]

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The sight line is a good 3/4" above the bead-sighted sight line. No shim will move the stock that high.

I bought a used 500a as a beater, house gun. The wood stock that was on it had a little bit of water damage (nothing bad. The for grip had the same, and it dried out after a few months).

One of the other used guns in the shop had one of those ATI, six-position stocks, and I asked if he would put in on my gun (I figured it would be cheaper than getting the stock cut down to my size). I'd read all the warnings about how the better stock for the shotgun was wood, but I just didn't want to spend $75 to fit the stock on a $125 gun. When I got the stock home, I realized that the comb was way to high for me (couldnt' get my check down low enough to see the bead), but I still seemed to do well enough at the range for my purposes.

One day after that, I was in the shop and saw that they had one from the factory with the ATI stock (my shop normally stocks a couple of these), so I looked and noticed a drop stock spacer. I called up Mossberg and told theme everything (including that the stock didn't come on the gun and that it was all used). Mossberg sent me the spacers "complementary", and now the gun fits me so that I like shooting it more than the Winchester that I took to to the stock doctor.

Mossberg definitely sends guns out with the ATI AR style stock. Also, while I don't know if they make spacers that raise the comb, it might be worth checking into.

 

[zorkd]

one more thing wrong with mossberg

some of their marinecote 590 (the one i got at least) had a tight and rough chamber.

shells sticking all the time.

 

[AcceptableUserName]

lol. get an express then.


see how much better it is.



the poor carpenter blames his tools, the good ones learns to overcome the issues and create a far more powerful tool.


Your options here are to send it to Mossberg, in which case they'll do you well customer service wise and send back a firearm as beautiful as the Mariners I've owned (I've owned 2 or 3 over the past 2 years or so), or learn how to undertake internals and chamber polishing yourself. It isn't rocket science by any stretch and is something I apply to every new shotgun I get.

I've owned like 8 Mossbergs, all defense configured, and haven't had the slightest issue out of them that concerns me SINCE I've beciome more experienced with shotguns and their upkeep and tendencies. My 590a1 had 2 3/4" and 3" slugs stick in the chamber as well as my 1975 Remington 870 Wingmaster (the modern Wingmasters SLAUGHTER the 870 Express, let alone a vintage one), and FWIW the Mossbergs issues disappeared much quicker than the 870s' have, in my experiences. Polishing always cures or improves the issue, depending on the roughness of the chamber. My advice to you is to polish the chamber well, then buy a bunch of 3" and magnum loads and shoot the hell out of it.

When a pump shotgun messes up, don't panic or blame the gun. Work it out. If it will happen to a Wingmaster, it'll happen to any of them. It's when the issues become constant you either have a lemon or a bad company. I haven't had either when it comes to a Mossberg.


I have however, seen some shoddy stock fit on factory Mossbergs. My friends has a thumbhole stock and it's one of the most awful experiences ever. I've been lucky in that the guns I've bought haven't had it (though the stock on my 590a1 needed to be adjusted a HAIR and tightened), at any rate I'd send it back if I hated the cheek weld. And I'd avoid the ATI nonsense in any event. To be honest, issues with the stock are the most common Mossberg issue in my experience. Mossbergs are always a Good-enough-but-great-enough-if-you-work-with-them affair and thats one of the reasons I like them so much. It's like you bond with the gun as you set it up and break it in.

 

[ArmedBear]

However, some of us "tacticool" lovers out there actually understand, appreciate and implement the various ideals regarding proper "shotgun fit."

Really? The use of quotation marks suggests that you don't. Shotgun fit is quite real, not some imaginary BS that people talk about. Rifle fit is, too, and very few rifle shooters have a clue about it. Then they want rifle sights on a shotgun.

Mossberg, like every other company out there, even including Weatherby, wants to sell some of their guns to the "tacticool" crowd. I've known some of the people who buy "tactical" guns. These types just like to have them; they don't shoot them anyway. So, gunmakers provide what they want: a certain look. People looking for that aren't willing to pay for quality. There are certainly high-end Tactical shotguns out there, too, as I'm sure you know. They don't have these issues.

That's what I mean by the "tacticool" buyer: non-shooters who want a certain look, not people like 3-gunners who shoot once a week or more, plus competition. They tend to know what they're doing, too. Competition tends to do that to you...

 

[Snarlingiron]

Mossberg, like every other company out there, even including Weatherby, wants to sell some of their guns to the "tacticool" crowd. I've known some of the people who buy "tactical" guns. These types just like to have them; they don't shoot them anyway.

Right on. Most of the folks that buy these never shoot them. They take them to the range, shoot a box or two and then they park them in a closet, hide a box of birdshot somewhere and believe that they are protected from the evils of the world.

I would bet that 75% of these guns never see more that 100 rounds of ammo.

We had a new guy at work not long ago. He heard I was into guns, and informed me that he had a Glock 22 that he bought just after the 9-11 tragedy. I asked him how many rounds he had put through it. He looked at me like I had lost my mind and said, "I haven't ever fired it. I haven't needed to."

On the other hand, I have 2 tactical 870s that I have taken a couple of defensive shotgun courses with and I practice with them regularly. They do have utility and purpose (mine are pretty plain, just short barrels and magazine extensions), but as you say, most folks just want them to look cool.

 

[MCgunner]

Tacticool rarely is practicool. My 500 has been shootin' ducks just fine for 20 years. I shimmed the stock for proper fit, but that's about the only thing I've done other than clean it religiously.

Normal standard stock 500 and an 18.5" bead barrel if I wanted it to do home defense duty. I don't need no stinkin' tactical crap. Just gets in the way of good shooting.

 

[MCgunner]

Rifle fit is, too, and very few rifle shooters have a clue about it. Then they want rifle sights on a shotgun.

I have a friend that loves see through mounts so his scope is optional. He's been clueless for years. LOL

 

[ArmedBear]

I think the bottom line is this: if you are a serious shooter and you handle a with a gun tactical configuration, you have to determine whether it's really meant for you. It might be meant to cash in on the "gottahaveit" buyer who won't shoot it. Quality tactical guns are made extremely well, and they can cost a hell of a lot, too.

That's what I mean by "tacticool". I don't use the word to refer to a quality tactical firearm or shooter (except, perhaps, in the case of someone who spends $2500 on a top-notch AR but doesn't ever shoot it either).

When assessing a gun that seems cheap for what it is, remember: "If it sounds too good to be true, it is."

Also, IMO, for me, a shotgun is at its best in a "traditional" configuration, because it handles very well. If I want a gun to come up naturally and easily on wild-flushing quail, I also want it to come up naturally and easily on a bad guy who's pointing a gun at me. What prevents the first, prevents the second.

 

[MCgunner]

Me, I just don't see why I need a 45 round magazine and a folding stock when my coach gun will kill a man just as quick and is short and quite practical for home defense. Killin' a man at 15 feet is a lot easier, even in the dark, than shooting a dove at 30 yards. I kill lots of birds with that gun, am quite familiar with it. I think being familiar with the gun through lots of shooting is more practical than folding stocks that don't fit and magazine capacity doesn't concern me. I'm not kickin' in doors on drug raids with it, just defending my safe room, and I have a .357 magnum and a .38 revolver right there handy if I need to go investigate a bump in the night.