Why do I choose Mossberg 500 over Remmy 870...

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Nail Gun

    Blissfully Ignorant
    Rating - 97.4%
    38   1   0
    Aug 18, 2010
    846
    18
    Slidell
    Remington had that issue with one of their bolt action rifles for many years, but any of that with the 870 would be news to me.

    - - - Updated - - -


    Remington had that issue with one of their bolt action rifles for many years, but any of that with the 870 would be news to me.

    I wouldn't be shocked. My dad had an 1100 that took to firing when the bolt was closed. If you charged the gun from a full tube it would go into F/A Runway. IIRC their trigger and bolt groups are very similar.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    Shotguns should have shotgun stocks.

    Unless you breach doors for a living.
    Meh personal preference, and purpose. Wingshooting, I would agree. Turkey hunting I might like some sort of pistol grip. Honestly wing/trap/skeet are probably the only types of shooting I would absolutely prefer a standard stock. Everything else I’m open to opinions. But I also hunt with AR’s because it’s a very comfortable platform for me.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Much as I expected, looks like a fairly even split just like the market (and aftermarket!) reflects. And there are those who can appreciate both (we are the smart ones) for what they both are. Interesting is all the stink about safety location tho. I don’t quite get the fuss. But I seem to remember a lot of fuss about mag release location (trigger guard) on the H&K USP when it hit the market...which is also used by quite a few Walther offerings. Maybe some folks find it a task to work the safety, but it suits me fine. Either way, not a deal breaker for me. I can’t imagine it being an impossible task tho.
    I’ll bet I prolly have more Mossberg shotguns than most folks here. I’ve got them in all sorts of configurations. I even had a bullpup once upon a time. When I do need parts I can usually order them direct from Mossberg at a really low cost and their customer service is about equal that of Ruger in my opinion. I haven’t had much luck with Remington.
    I think one underrated offering is the 835. I remember nearly breaking my neck to get one when they hit the market and it did indeed fill the bill. I rarely pass a good deal on one today.
    All in all, I started this thread for Mossberg 500 fans anyway. I hardly ever hear anyone remark about it being the only one to pass milspec testing so I thought it would be news to some.
     

    CAJUNLAWYER

    crusty old bastard
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Aug 22, 2010
    129
    16
    Iberia Parish
    Re the Mossy-Remmy debate starting this thread Browning BPS is better than both. Mil spec really doesn't mean a thing-it is a marketing tool. Lots of time mil spec isn't as good as commercial unless yer an operator then you NEED mil spec.
    The finish on the Browning is NOT mil spec but is "Rustoleum flat black bar-b-que spray paint" spec and it don't rust. Cost a LOT less than Cerakote, Birdsong or any other mil spec finish too.
     

    Jack

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    40   0   0
    Dec 9, 2010
    8,602
    63
    Covington
    Re the Mossy-Remmy debate starting this thread Browning BPS is better than both. Mil spec really doesn't mean a thing-it is a marketing tool. Lots of time mil spec isn't as good as commercial unless yer an operator then you NEED mil spec.
    The finish on the Browning is NOT mil spec but is "Rustoleum flat black bar-b-que spray paint" spec and it don't rust. Cost a LOT less than Cerakote, Birdsong or any other mil spec finish too.

    Ummm.... milspec literally does mean something. It means it’s manufactured to a specific specification. It makes something a known quantity.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Re the Mossy-Remmy debate starting this thread Browning BPS is better than both. Mil spec really doesn't mean a thing-it is a marketing tool. Lots of time mil spec isn't as good as commercial unless yer an operator then you NEED mil spec.
    The finish on the Browning is NOT mil spec but is "Rustoleum flat black bar-b-que spray paint" spec and it don't rust. Cost a LOT less than Cerakote, Birdsong or any other mil spec finish too.


    Lol, I don’t think you’ll find very many that agree with your opinion of mil spec. If you took time to watch the video you’d see exactly what specs the military required in their testing. If you think it doesn’t mean anything at that point then I’d say there’s a lack of better judgement somewhere in your statement. Opinions and facts are worlds apart it seems. Browning makes nice stuff. And you like the BPS better. But does that make it better?
    Like Jack said, military specifications are something you can measure, unlike an opinion. Specs are different for things tested. Different specs for different items. Just so happens the expectations in the testing of a military shotgun were pretty high. High enough that only one shotgun could meet the requirements. I don’t see anything about opinions in the testing. I also didn’t see where the Browning BPS passed the same testing.
     

    CAJUNLAWYER

    crusty old bastard
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Aug 22, 2010
    129
    16
    Iberia Parish
    Lol, I don’t think you’ll find very many that agree with your opinion of mil spec. If you took time to watch the video you’d see exactly what specs the military required in their testing. If you think it doesn’t mean anything at that point then I’d say there’s a lack of better judgement somewhere in your statement. Opinions and facts are worlds apart it seems. Browning makes nice stuff. And you like the BPS better. But does that make it better?
    Like Jack said, military specifications are something you can measure, unlike an opinion. Specs are different for things tested. Different specs for different items. Just so happens the expectations in the testing of a military shotgun were pretty high. High enough that only one shotgun could meet the requirements. I don’t see anything about opinions in the testing. I also didn’t see where the Browning BPS passed the same testing.

    Mil spec means it meets the specifications in the bid nothing more nothing less. Does that make something built to these specifications better than something not? Absolutely not. Case in point-parkerizing. It is mil spec but it is not as god a rust preventative coating as numerous other coatings. It's main advantage is that it is cheaper to apply. Remember this, lowest bid plays a BIG part in who gets these contracts period. The manufacturer would have you believe otherwise but quite honestly there is not a whit worth of difference in most procurements except the price. What you see and read otherwise is marketing from the winner. Regarding my opinion about the browning, to my knowledge Browning has never put forth the BPS for consideration to the military-mainly I presume that they felt the process was already rigged with the specs set forth and that they would not waste their time or cheapen the gun by building it to a Mossy or Remmy price point. Don't buy something because it is "Mil Spec" or is the one operators use, buy it because it works and you like it. Any other reason is strictly for poseurs. I like Brownings, you like Mossburgs. I like blondes you like redheads. Is one better than the other? Nope! Would I pass up a reasonably priced Mossburg or redhead because they were not a Browning or a blond? Nope. Mil Spec means they met the specifications of the contract, NOT that is is better than something that did not even try.
     

    CAJUNLAWYER

    crusty old bastard
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Aug 22, 2010
    129
    16
    Iberia Parish
    One step further

    Did anyone know that Mossburg was the ONLY shotgun submitted when they won the bid? Pretty much any shotgun could make the cut and then would be allowed to bid. Remington Knew that and also knew that there was absolutely no way they could undercut Mossburgs price so they didn't even enter the competition. That is perhaps the point I tried to make earlier. Mossburgs claims, while true, are somewhat disingenuous. They ARE mil spec but they were also the ONLY gun entered. If you don't believe me-do the research on your own. It just gets me back to the original point. Buy the gun you LIKE , not the one that is MIL SPEC. ANY shotgun entered would have passed the criteria-it is NOT a ranking but a pass fail test. You pass the test and build it to their specs-then you can bid on the contract. Lowest bid gets it. Costs a [ot of money to enter into one of these "competitions" and if you know that, while your weapon will pass muster, you are gonna loose on the price issue then why bother. Remingtons are more expensive to build than Mossburgs, and Brownings are more expensive to build than Remingtons. They decided not to waste money on a contract they could not win.
    Let me explain this another way.
    The Army wants an official watch for the military-the specification is are that it keep time and can be worn on the wrist. Any watch that meets these specs and passes a trial where it keeps time correctly for one month may submit a bid to procurement. Timex, Seiko and Rolex all meet the Mil Spec requirements (they tell time and can be worn on the wrist). Do you honestly think that ROlex is going to waste time with the trials knowing that the lower bid is going to win the contract???? For that matter I would think that Seiko isn't gonna waste time wither.
    Timex gets the contact and advertises that they are built to Mil Spec and are the ONLY watch chosen by the military after procurement trials. Very true. But DON'T tell me that a Timex is a better watch than a Seiko or a Rolex.
    SO in conclusion-buy what you like but don't be taken in by this "Mil Spec" nonsense as an overriding factor.
    Class dismissed.
     

    Jack

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    40   0   0
    Dec 9, 2010
    8,602
    63
    Covington
    A few things, saying milspec doesn’t mean anything, is entirely different than saying *some things are made better than milspec and some things are made worse*. The first is nonsense the second is obvious.

    Second, just because it was the only weapon submitted doesn’t mean they have to select it. They have the option of rejecting all offerings.

    I don’t think anyone is saying *____ is milspec, so it is the best option possible*, people are saying *____ is milspec, so there is a standard by which it is made, if you’re okay with that standard or want something different is your choice, but you at least know exactly what you’re getting*.

    I’m actually not a mossberg fan myself, I don’t like the position of the safety. I’m not a shotgun fan at all, I prefer shooting ARs. Me telling you that you’re wrong when you say milspec means nothing and it’s just a marketing tool isn’t coming from a place of me liking mossberg or anything else, it’s coming from a place of *You are wrong, it quite literally means something, it means the item is made to a specific standard*.

    Might wanna deflate that chest a little bit, nobody is all wound up about this. The bit about *class dismissed* when you were clearly talking out of your ass and don’t understand what other people are trying to tell you just makes you look like a child.
     
    Last edited:

    Fordfella

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 8, 2018
    416
    63
    Lafayette, Louisiana
    I had a 500 that would "click" every step I took and scare off what I was shooting at. Traded it in on a 870 in a pawn shop, bought a box of shells on the way home, and cleaned the starlings out of the barn. I still have the 870, and have had for almost 30 years now!
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    I work for a construction company, and we do a lot of DFAR work, and last year the ‘Mil-Spec’ was a grade of pipe that was obsolete by decades. We requested a substitution for an upgraded pipe that was both cheaper and much stronger with tighter tolerances. That’s not always the case we have some stainless piping that is line honed and imported from France to the tune in 6k per linear foot in some cases. In this case nothing short of the absolute best piping available. Is it overkill? Well I’m no engineer, but my boss is and he laughs all the way to the bank.

    We all remember the M17 met ‘spec’ and one the contest, but there are tons of great duty pistols that would have met spec if they didn’t require a dummy lever. I don’t know the requirements of the shotty competition, but ‘mil-spec’ for me is a good starting point on the AR platform.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Maybe in a perfect world shotguns would have Glock triggers and no safety switches...
    I remember when the speed feed stocks hit the market and folks were raving about them. The first one I picked up had that 2 extra rounds right there on the breach side of the buttstock. All I could think about was how I loaded with my left hand while keeping my firing hand firmly on the grip. How difficult and cumbersome it must be to even try to load on the fly from that ammo stash. Never the less, those two extra rounds were there in the stock. Two more than I had in my pocket or belt or what have you.
    I have a few questions about the safety thing: I understand if you choose a pistol gripped stock for your shotgun and then realize you can’t actually use your shooting hand to operate a top tang safety while holding the gun in a ready to fire position, but...
    Who actually shoulders a shotgun or has it at the ready in a defensive situation or in combat and hasn’t already disengaged the safety? Do those people also wait until taking fire to rack the slide and chamber a round?
    If those people load the way I do, right hand on the grip, trigger finger beside the trigger guard, left hand pushing rounds up the tube, is it taboo in their book to just reach up with the loading hand and thumb the safety?
    Of all the different safety switches on firearms, is this really the one that would make you afraid to depend on such a dependable firearm or is there another reason for making such a fuss over a safety?
    I’ll take 3000 rounds with no failures.
     
    Last edited:

    Gus McCrae

    No sir, I ain't.
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 25, 2009
    8,370
    38
    Colorado
    Both are fine for whatever task. I prefer the 500 for the tang safety. If I ran a pistol grip configuration, I'd want the crossbolt safety. That's really about all there is to them.
     

    Jack

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    40   0   0
    Dec 9, 2010
    8,602
    63
    Covington
    Maybe in a perfect world shotguns would have Glock triggers and no safety switches...
    I remember when the speed feed stocks hit the market and folks were raving about them. The first one I picked up had that 2 extra rounds right there on the breach side of the buttstock. All I could think about was how I loaded with my left hand while keeping my firing hand firmly on the grip. How difficult and cumbersome it must be to even try to load on the fly from that ammo stash. Never the less, those two extra rounds were there in the stock. Two more than I had in my pocket or belt or what have you.
    I have a few questions about the safety thing: I understand if you choose a pistol gripped stock for your shotgun and then realize you can’t actually use your shooting hand to operate a top tang safety while holding the gun in a ready to fire position, but...
    Who actually shoulders a shotgun or has it at the ready in a defensive situation or in combat and hasn’t already disengaged the safety? Do those people also wait until taking fire to rack the slide and chamber a round?
    If those people load the way I do, right hand on the grip, trigger finger beside the trigger guard, left hand pushing rounds up the tube, is it taboo in their book to just reach up with the loading hand and thumb the safety?
    Of all the different safety switches on firearms, is this really the one that would make you afraid to depend on such a dependable firearm or is there another reason for making such a fuss over a safety?
    I’ll take 3000 rounds with no failures.

    Honestly, all long guns should have safeties because you can’t put them in holsters and **** happens. That’s why I don’t mind the Glock safety, because the trigger is protected with a round chambered, by the holster. I’ve personally seen stuff like the stick on a tourniquet catch the trigger on an AR-15 while the rifle is slung.

    When I was still shooting shotguns I kept the safety on, until I was bringing the shotgun up to level and as it came up, safety off. That’s my biggest gripe with the mossberg stuff. Can’t do the same with it, without giving up the pistol grip.

    There is also a lot to be said for being really good at a limited number of things. It’s why I only shoot Glock pistols and AR-15s. It’s also why when I still shot shotguns I preferred pistol grips. It’s just easier to use something well if you use the same things all the time.

    Lots of people shoot lots of guns really really well and I wouldn’t knock anyone for using a mossberg, it’s just not for me is all.
     

    CAJUNLAWYER

    crusty old bastard
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Aug 22, 2010
    129
    16
    Iberia Parish
    A few things, saying milspec doesn’t mean anything, is entirely different than saying *some things are made better than milspec and some things are made worse*. The first is nonsense the second is obvious.

    Second, just because it was the only weapon submitted doesn’t mean they have to select it. They have the option of rejecting all offerings.

    I don’t think anyone is saying *____ is milspec, so it is the best option possible*, people are saying *____ is milspec, so there is a standard by which it is made, if you’re okay with that standard or want something different is your choice, but you at least know exactly what you’re getting*.

    I’m actually not a mossberg fan myself, I don’t like the position of the safety. I’m not a shotgun fan at all, I prefer shooting ARs. Me telling you that you’re wrong when you say milspec means nothing and it’s just a marketing tool isn’t coming from a place of me liking mossberg or anything else, it’s coming from a place of *You are wrong, it quite literally means something, it means the item is made to a specific standard*.

    Might wanna deflate that chest a little bit, nobody is all wound up about this. The bit about *class dismissed* when you were clearly talking out of your ass and don’t understand what other people are trying to tell you just makes you look like a child.
    Ah......the ad hominum rejoinder. I admit freely that I sometimes come across as pedantic-but I see it as more didactic (my wife and children might disagree).Go back and read the FIRST post of this thread. Then read my responses.The poor guy probably did not realize that Mossburg was the ONLY gun in the "competition" and based his decision in large part because Mossburg "won." Buy a gun because you LIKE it and DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Mossburg's claim IS disingenuous and that kind of stuff by ANYONE selling product does **** me off. As I tell my clients-DO YOUR HOMEWORK because most of the time you are your own worst enemy. I like Mossburg but I already own an 870, won a Winchester SXP that I a still have not even put together and still lust over a BPS/Ithaca so I really don't need a Mossburg. The last time I handled one was their shockwave (or whatever they call it). I liked it and if I was gonna buy one, I'd buy it over the 870. But I'm gonna hold off for a V3 TAC3. If I am gonna buy a toy like that I want MAXIMUM firepower!:D
     
    Last edited:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,713
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    A few things, saying milspec doesn’t mean anything, is entirely different than saying *some things are made better than milspec and some things are made worse*. The first is nonsense the second is obvious.

    Second, just because it was the only weapon submitted doesn’t mean they have to select it. They have the option of rejecting all offerings.

    I don’t think anyone is saying *____ is milspec, so it is the best option possible*, people are saying *____ is milspec, so there is a standard by which it is made, if you’re okay with that standard or want something different is your choice, but you at least know exactly what you’re getting*.

    I’m actually not a mossberg fan myself, I don’t like the position of the safety. I’m not a shotgun fan at all, I prefer shooting ARs. Me telling you that you’re wrong when you say milspec means nothing and it’s just a marketing tool isn’t coming from a place of me liking mossberg or anything else, it’s coming from a place of *You are wrong, it quite literally means something, it means the item is made to a specific standard*.

    Might wanna deflate that chest a little bit, nobody is all wound up about this. The bit about *class dismissed* when you were clearly talking out of your ass and don’t understand what other people are trying to tell you just makes you look like a child.

    Ah......the ad hominum rejoinder. I admit freely that I sometimes come across as pedantic-but I see it as more didactic (my wife and children might disagree).Go back and read the FIRST post of this thread. Then read my responses.The poor guy probably did not realize that Mossburg was the ONLY gun in the "competition" and based his decision in large part because Mossburg "won." Buy a gun because you LIKE it and DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Mossburg's claim IS disingenuous and that kind of stuff by ANYONE selling product does **** me off. As I tell my clients-DO YOUR HOMEWORK because most of the time you are your own worst enemy. I like Mossburg but I already own an 870, won a Winchester SXP that I a still have not even put together and still lust over a BPS/Ithaca so I really don't need a Mossburg. The last time I handled one was their shockwave (or whatever they call it). I liked it and if I was gonna buy one, I'd buy it over the 870. But I'm gonna hold off for a V3 TAC3. If I am gonna buy a toy like that I want MAXIMUM firepower!:D

    Actually, it's not ad hominum. He did not direct his argument directly at you. Instead, he addressed your points with counter points.
     
    Top Bottom