JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
The barrel swapping would be perfectly doable in a hunting camp. Long barrel for birding and swapping it out in the evening for any "bumps in the night." The point was that you get both in a package deal so you have both complimentary barrels in one purchase.

All of the lock-up in a Mossberg is steel to steel. The receiver being aluminum is no bigger a deal than it is on an AR rifle, both proven through far more real world scrapes than a duck hunter will ever serve up.

As to the safety switch and the trigger plate. On a 590A1 both are made of metal. On a 500, both are end user swappable if the plastic is really a problem. The most common 870 on the market today, the 870 Express, has, you guessed it, a plastic trigger plate too. The plastic trigger group has now crept into the 870P too thanks to the profit taking of the Cerebus Group that runs Remington. Oh and the Express has, a MIM extractor, and only one of those POS units where a Mossberg has dual extractors. The Express has a MIM ejector in it too.

The funny thing about Cerebus cheapening the 870 is that the 870 was originally a price cutting model to compete better against the Winchester Model 12. The Remington Model 31, which I like, BTW, couldn't compete cost wise against the wildly popular Winchester. However, as the Winchester's all machined, hand fitted construction costs continued to escalate in price post war, the "cheaply" made 870, consisting of a then-radical amount of stampings and music wire springs and such, began taking over the market. It happened to be good, but the market was swung on the lower bottom line than Winchester could meet. Once designed to meet a rock bottom production cost point, today the 870 is being pushed to an even lower production cost target by taking material shortcuts that were simply not ever designed into the gun in the first place.

Lo and behold, the Mossberg 500 came along in 1960, using basically the same superior feed system that was the heart the Model 31. The 500 also used an aluminum receiver, which was no problem apparently when Remington was making and selling the M31L, which had, gasp, an aluminum receiver.

Essentially, the 870 was produced to be something like a cheap Winchester Model 12, the 500 a cheaper version of the M31L.

As to the term "slam fire" that's why I put it in quotes. Even if erroneously, most people call the pump actuated fire on a shotgun without a trigger disconnector, "slam-firing." I am not defending or advocating that term, I only used it for the sake of convenience.
 
Your reference is flat out idiotic then, considering Chuck Connor's famous rifle was a lever action with a screw embedded in the lever that pulled the trigger upon closing, no disconnector needed or present. Checkmate is the fact that the vast majority of M1912 Winchesters ever made are also capable of so called "slam-firing" just like the 1897.

Could be you also don't understand the conjunction "or" and also fail to grasp the meaning of the phrase "best all around," as the OP's only declared criteria is "to learn which shotgun would be more reliable in adverse weather conditions," for both of his stated purposes.

My position on adverse conditions is that both shotguns are going to be totally reliable in any weather that can be thrown at them so long as the shooter doesn't screw things up short stroking. As to the field/defense criteria? The shortcomings of the 870 as a defense gun are not outweighed by its slight advantage as a bird gun.

And if the OP were to buy the Mossberg 500 combo package that has an easily swappable 18.5" barrel for defense and a vented rib 28" barrel for better swing, any one Remington 870 is going to have no advantage at all.

It is an axiom that strong opinions most often are accompanied by weak evidence. The third characteristic in the invariable triumvirate is a quickness to anger. Perhaps a fourth is illustrated here in a failure to consider information already presented.

The Chuck Connors reference (again) was simply a lighthearded analogy to HIS famous action of rapid-firing his weapon. The reference had absolutely nothing to do with the design or mechanics of his weapon, certainly no comparison to the mechanism of a pump shotgun. Most understood that.

Also, small effort directed toward a review of information previously supplied will show that I did include the Model 12 as a gun capable of firing in the same manner. (But, I don't get credit for it and neither does anybody else: Coop illustrated it first.) All of this is available in the posts before, and will save much effort in relating information as new, or one's own. I would correct the use of the term "slam fire" as well, but (reading previous posts carefully and respectfully as I do to save myself embarrassment) I find that Coop beat me to that as well.

Pump guns in the stable NOW:

Winchester Model 97 Riot Gun, Arsenal Marked, Mfg. 1918 (Killed a problem bear with it in the Bob Marshall Wilderness in the middle of the night)
Winchester Model 12 16ga. Field Grade, Mfg: 1938 (Took my finest Tom turkey with this gun).
Remington M870 12g. Mfg 1958: American steel, dark walnut, hand checkering.

And, my ONLY pump shotgun as a teenager was a Mossberg: albeit 20ga. Six years experience with it in the field. Yeah, it worked. But it ain't no 870.
 
This lecture brought to by the master of English who twice couldn't comprehend that the OP wanted his prospective shotgun to cover two roles.

I'm not angry. I find you guys to be quaint dinosaurs, no matter your chronological age.

Enjoy your venerable and increasingly shoddily produced Winchester Model 12 price fighters. "It ain't no 870" is an argument not worth a cola can full of tobacco spit, and even more worthless each day Cerebus Group has Remington in its clutches.
 
"...be it hunting or protecting a camp ground."

I've brought this forward to save what perhaps would be repeated neglected effort. Hunting is the first purpose stated: Primary in the OP's mind as evidenced by his hierarchy of expression. More importantly, (nearly) all would agree that in a situation where a shotgun might be taken along for both purposes, hunting would be the purpose toward which the shotgun will see constant, repeated, regular use.

It is curious that an emphasis has been drawn to the conjunction "or". Equivalent purposes would be better expressed with the conjunction "and", or the phrases "as well as", or "along with". We are obligated to take the OP at face value, and he obviously recognizes what purpose is primary and frequent, and what purpose will be realistically a remote and rare possibility. He expresses this well: not only by stating hunting first, but the very well-chosen conjunction "or".

If I state that for dinner, I would like a T-bone steak OR fried chicken, (nearly) all would agree my emphasis and primary communication is toward the steak: especially if the chance of having fried chicken is an extremely remote possibility and T-bone steaks are prevalent.

The internet fails in that persons may experience emotions (such as anger), but their communications may not convey the emotion; until they begin calling names (Fudd), or assigning derogatory terms ("idiotic") to others' ideas. At that point it is safe to assume that the communicator is at the very least upset (since a lack of control has been exhibited), or perhaps angry.

Finally, the OP might be interested to know what honest experience each communicator has had with each of the mentioned shotguns, and whether or not they own any of them now. Time in the field hunting OR experiences with protection of a campground might be of interest. Common ground may be found here, as well as agreement toward the well-expressed concern regarding conglomerates beginning to swallow our respected American gun firms (and questionable quality of the newer products).
 
Fudd was a measured insult in response to all but being accused of being a Walter Mitty via an indulgence in "video game fantasies," and of being a "combat expert." A USMC SSgt I deeply respect was the first to demonstrate to my satisfaction that when the chips were down, the Mossberg 590A1 was superior in rapid handling to the m870. Both were in the weapons lockers and the 870s were in the back every time, unissued since the 590s arrived.

You yourself called me an "operator." I guess that sergeant was a poseur too?

Amuse me and say neither of you were being disparaging because I declared the inanimate object called the Remington Model 870 to fall short in my experience. Experience which was obviously grounded in the role of the shotgun as employed by the modern military.

Hierarchical thoughts assumed to be expressed by the OP aside, a review of this thread demonstrates I didn't start the animosity. People who couldn't handle my calling the 870 good for little beyond wing shooting did.
 
...and I somehow have yet to find the opportunity to join the animosity the least bit attractive

"Combat expert" and "Operator" are really not derogatory terms, unless one is sensitive to how he might measure up to the real McCoy. I jumped out of airborne helicopters with no parachute and a full Alice pack for four years. If I was called a "Combat expert" I'd figure the guy calling me that was shooting a bit high and keep my mouth shut with the compliment received.

The references here were in that such "combat application" advice wasn't really of primary importance to the OP. We ALL got caught up in that mistake. I acknowledged mine. (Still waiting for anyone else to do so.)

I acknowledged an agreed contribution you made, along with an avenue to find constructive common ground. (Still waiting....)

Ya know, none if this is gravely serious stuff. Lighten up. Say "Checkmate" one more time and I'm taking my board and going home.
 
Damn, remind me never to get into a debate with you two. I thought I knew a something about shotguns, but, today I realized I'm just a novice. I think you two should get together and make a "hybrid" shotgun featuring the what each of you presume to be the best of both worlds. You could call it the Mossington 570 or the Reminburg 800. I sure as hell would buy one.

Either-way, thank you ALL for your input. Not gonna say it made choosing one easier, actually, it probably made it harder.
 
"Combat expert" and "Operator" are really not derogatory terms, unless one is sensitive to how he might measure up to the real McCoy. I jumped out of airborne helicopters with no parachute and a full Alice pack for four years. If I was called a "Combat expert" I'd figure the guy calling me that was shooting a bit high and keep my mouth shut with the compliment received.

If you were called that in close proximity to a barb about "video game fantasies" thrown your way, you wouldn't be that sanguine.

In any event, it seems the OP has had an earful. See ya around. No hard feelings and all that.
 
Okay, then, buy the best pump shotgun ever made: A Winchester Model 12. You will pay more, but shop carefully, buy smart, and it will be better than money in the bank (or even in real estate, for that matter).

And THAT cannot be said for EITHER the Mossberg 500 OR the Remington 870.
 
Hunted waterfowl for years with both 870 and 500's (also Winchesters). They all performed pretty much equally well. I like the large aftermarket for the 870. If I were just starting out I would opt for the Mossburg 2bbl package. That's how I outfitted my son and it worked out very well. Good luck on your scattergun search!
 
Last Edited:
I have owned all three now and I like the 870 over the mossberg and the model 12 over both, my go to gun is the 870 its an older model early seventies its built solid, my mossy the lock broke and when you fire it if your not holding the slide it goes out of battery and the slide moves to the back the mossy was brand new and well taken care of
 
I would pick the 870. Smoother action and it is easier to take down. The shotguns are pretty on par with each other but I'm a Remington fan and i think the 870 is smoother, faster(for me to operate), and easier to disassemble. As for reliability they are both though as all hell just comes down to preference on how it feels to shoot more than anything.
 
No love for Benelli? My Nova tactical pump has never failed me. Comes default with ghost ring sights.

Mossberg will never get my business again after they issued the "DEA commemorative" shotgun.
 
Let me guess:

"In striking detail, your DEA Commemerative Shotgun will have engraved on its side panels a brilliant likeness of a helicopter spraying 2-4-D on a field of virulent Cannabis. Surely an heirloom your children and children's children will cherish for years to come!"
 
Okay, so an ejector (that on my 870 has not broken for over 50 years of use now) might have to go to a GUNSMITH (NOT the Remington Factory: where does this guy live to have no gunsmiths?) to be replaced. I would also speculate that the lead time to obtain an ejector for the Mossberg would be very similar to the lead time to obtain an ejector for the Remington. Therefore, this "advantage Mossberg" is completely invalid, unless one is in the habit of carrying in his pocket an ejector for his Mossberg.

Wait....since it is a Mossberg, that practice might well be examined and perhaps followed. I see now, that must be the valuable advice profferred here.

And, if I am loading my Remington in a hurry, and don't do it correctly, I might be "hopelessly jammed". Well, I've loaded my Remington in quite a hurry quite a number of times (dove shooting dictates this skill be repeated ad infinitum). I must be among the chosen and blessed, because my 870 has NEVER jammed, "hopelessly" or otherwise, for ANY reason. I would submit that it might not be too difficult to winnow out an incorrect procedure with the Mossberg that could result in an incorrect operation of the gun. In fact, I think this deliberate exploration toward malfunction would bear fruit directed at ANY piece of machinery.

Finally, it seems our learned tutor (and his helpful information) is directed toward combat application. Once again, that is not the OP's primary usage (and in all fact and practicality is a remote possibility for him).
 
Okay, so an ejector (that on my 870 has not broken for over 50 years of use now) might have to go to a GUNSMITH (NOT the Remington Factory: where does this guy live to have no gunsmiths?) to be replaced. I would also speculate that the lead time to obtain an ejector for the Mossberg would be very similar to the lead time to obtain an ejector for the Remington. Therefore, this "advantage Mossberg" is completely invalid, unless one is in the habit of carrying in his pocket an ejector for his Mossberg. Wait....since it is a Mossberg, that practice might well be examined and perhaps followed.

And, if I am loading my Remington in a hurry, and don't do it correctly, I might be "hopelessly jammed". Well, I've loaded my Remington in quite a hurry quite a number of times (dove shooting dictates this skill be repeated ad infinitum). I must be among the chosen and blessed, because my 870 has NEVER jammed, "hopelessly" or otherwise, for ANY reason. I would submit that it might not be too difficult to winnow out an incorrect procedure with the Mossberg that could result in an incorrect operation of the gun. In fact, I think this deliberate exploration toward malfunction would bear fruit directed at ANY piece of machinery.

Finally, it seems our learned tutor (and his helpful information) is directed toward combat application. Once again, that is not the OP's primary usage (and in all fact and practicality is a remote possibility for him).

Your pretty long winded eh? Congrats on a good gun. However, he isn't coming up with these out of nowhere, they are known issues that have been brought to him many times.
 

Similar threads

  • Locked
Replies
0
Views
163
Replies
0
Views
116
Replies
9
Views
545
  • Locked
Replies
4
Views
418

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top