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!
  • Bangswitch

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

    Agreed long guns and safety are like PB&J you should have one without the other. Also I never carry in low ready with safety off, and never will. Conversely I would never carry a pistol outside the holster with the safety on. I also don’t do much walking with my pistol in hand. Walking around safety off in low ready with a long gun, what happens if you eat dirt for one reason or another. Bad things happen when we least expect it.

    Now I know my opinions are biased due to the amount of time I’m afield but where are you more likely to trip walking through a cutover in broad day light or walking through you house attempting to remember where the kids left their toys in dark. And let’s be honest the stakes are higher in the house.

    I’m not saying anyone’s methods are wrong, if you got methods that work for you that’s on you but I’m not thumbing a safety on my long guns until my nose is behind the breach. Dummy levers where made for people like me. :D
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    Actually, it's not ad hominum. He did not direct his argument directly at you. Instead, he addressed your points with counter points.

    I’m gonna go ahead and admit I should have known what that meant but I had to ask Uncle Google. Apparently too many people forcefully shoved information into my brainus and something fell out.:mamoru:
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    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.

    Having the ability to easily disengage the safety is not comparable to not having the chamber loaded. Don't try to confuse the issue.

    Even if you always shoulder the shotgun with the safety disengaged, you have to disengage it at some point. Are you saying you can't think of any instances where one might want to move with the safety on to a location while having the ability to easily disengage the safety if needed? Even in combat, do you think the soldiers disengage the safety the moment they step or drive out the wire? Sitting in their vehicles, they are absolutely going to have the safety on.

    One can reach up with their loading hand and thumb the safety, sure. But disengaging the safety, in my opinion, should not be a two handed operation. I can't think of any firearm that requires the off hand to disengage the safety, especially not a firearm that is utilized in a defensive manner. And I view it as two handed because you have to hold the shotgun with one hand while a second hand manipulates the safety.

    At no point did I say I was afraid of the tang safety. It's a good and reliable safety that is mechanically better than the cross bolt safety. But saying "A" is better than "B" doesn't matter if "B" is reliable. Reliability is a binary test. It is either reliable or it isn't. If the bolt safety were not reliable, I doubt the Remington would have been selected by so many police agencies and military units (that have a choice). While the tang safety is good, it's outdated. It limits the options available to the shooter. If you believe the pistol grip has no place on a shotgun, please feel free to address the number of advantages of a pistol grip I posted in a previous post. If you agree the pistol grip has its place on a shotgun in some situations, it's unreasonable to say the tang safety is as convenient and as easy to disengage as a cross bolt safety.

    Are you implying a Remington 870 cannot shoot 3000 rounds without a failure just because they didn't submit a shotgun to the trial?
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    Having the ability to easily disengage the safety is not comparable to not having the chamber loaded. Don't try to confuse the issue.

    Even if you always shoulder the shotgun with the safety disengaged, you have to disengage it at some point. Are you saying you can't think of any instances where one might want to move with the safety on to a location while having the ability to easily disengage the safety if needed? Even in combat, do you think the soldiers disengage the safety the moment they step or drive out the wire? Sitting in their vehicles, they are absolutely going to have the safety on.

    One can reach up with their loading hand and thumb the safety, sure. But disengaging the safety, in my opinion, should not be a two handed operation. I can't think of any firearm that requires the off hand to disengage the safety, especially not a firearm that is utilized in a defensive manner. And I view it as two handed because you have to hold the shotgun with one hand while a second hand manipulates the safety.

    At no point did I say I was afraid of the tang safety. It's a good and reliable safety that is mechanically better than the cross bolt safety. But saying "A" is better than "B" doesn't matter if "B" is reliable. Reliability is a binary test. It is either reliable or it isn't. If the bolt safety were not reliable, I doubt the Remington would have been selected by so many police agencies and military units (that have a choice). While the tang safety is good, it's outdated. It limits the options available to the shooter. If you believe the pistol grip has no place on a shotgun, please feel free to address the number of advantages of a pistol grip I posted in a previous post. If you agree the pistol grip has its place on a shotgun in some situations, it's unreasonable to say the tang safety is as convenient and as easy to disengage as a cross bolt safety.

    Are you implying a Remington 870 cannot shoot 3000 rounds without a failure just because they didn't submit a shotgun to the trial?

    Im with you on every point but for the tang safety being out dated. It’s ergonomically better in every other application I can think of at the moment except when the pistol grip pulls your thumb below the tang instead of over the top. It just doesn’t work for pistol grip applications like this. On traditional stocks my thumb often rides the tang instead of retaining a grip. Its akin to opening the support hand on a compound bow for me.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I’m gonna go ahead and admit I should have known what that meant but I had to ask Uncle Google. Apparently too many people forcefully shoved information into my brainus and something fell out.:mamoru:

    You're obviously not the only one who should have known what it meant but didn't. At least you recognized you needed to look it up rather than throwing out a fancy phrase incorrectly.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Im with you on every point but for the tang safety being out dated. It’s ergonomically better in every other application I can think of at the moment except when the pistol grip pulls your thumb below the tang instead of over the top. It just doesn’t work for pistol grip applications like this. On traditional stocks my thumb often rides the tang instead of retaining a grip. Its akin to opening the support hand on a compound bow for me.

    On a traditional stock, I agree the tang safety is not an issue. Some aftermarket stocks, like the Magpul SGA, have a more pistol-like angle but maintain the traditional stock design (thumb over top). I have no experience as to how this would affect reaching the tang safety. I say it is outdated because Mossberg sells multiple models of shotguns with a pistol grip and stock marketed as tactical. I can't believe they don't see the shortcomings of their safety in this configuration. But they can't argue they don't endorse this setup as they sell them in this setup. Yet they haven't updated their design to accommodate this setup.
     

    Jack

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    40   0   0
    Dec 9, 2010
    8,602
    63
    Covington
    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

    I don’t see what any of this has to do with me saying you were incorrect when you said milspec doesn’t mean anything. It’s why I don’t think you’re a pedant, because you’re avoiding that detail so much. I also don’t think you’re a didactic person, to teach one needs to know. You’re a guy who was wrong on the internet, thats all. Not a big deal, just own it and move on.

    By the way, kudos for using pedantic and didactic here, you’ve proven yourself to be quite the sesquipedalianist. :thumbsup:
     
    Last edited:

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Having the ability to easily disengage the safety is not comparable to not having the chamber loaded. Don't try to confuse the issue.

    Even if you always shoulder the shotgun with the safety disengaged, you have to disengage it at some point. Are you saying you can't think of any instances where one might want to move with the safety on to a location while having the ability to easily disengage the safety if needed? Even in combat, do you think the soldiers disengage the safety the moment they step or drive out the wire? Sitting in their vehicles, they are absolutely going to have the safety on.

    One can reach up with their loading hand and thumb the safety, sure. But disengaging the safety, in my opinion, should not be a two handed operation. I can't think of any firearm that requires the off hand to disengage the safety, especially not a firearm that is utilized in a defensive manner. And I view it as two handed because you have to hold the shotgun with one hand while a second hand manipulates the safety.

    At no point did I say I was afraid of the tang safety. It's a good and reliable safety that is mechanically better than the cross bolt safety. But saying "A" is better than "B" doesn't matter if "B" is reliable. Reliability is a binary test. It is either reliable or it isn't. If the bolt safety were not reliable, I doubt the Remington would have been selected by so many police agencies and military units (that have a choice). While the tang safety is good, it's outdated. It limits the options available to the shooter. If you believe the pistol grip has no place on a shotgun, please feel free to address the number of advantages of a pistol grip I posted in a previous post. If you agree the pistol grip has its place on a shotgun in some situations, it's unreasonable to say the tang safety is as convenient and as easy to disengage as a cross bolt safety.

    Are you implying a Remington 870 cannot shoot 3000 rounds without a failure just because they didn't submit a shotgun to the trial?
    First paragraph is a sucky attempt to diffuse my point. Don’t try to tell me what to say. I’m implying that I haven’t seen anyone prove that the Mossberg is proven to have passed the tests as described. I’ve already explained that I not only own a few 870 shotguns, but openly stated that the two guns that I included in the conversation are both proven offerings in their own right. Someone did offer a possible explanation as to why Remington threw in the towel from the get go, which I personally do not buy. I also haven’t read anywhere that the Mossberg was the sole contender, not that it would negate the published results of the testing and the US military and so many other countries and law enforcement agencies adopting the Mossberg. Just part of why I prefer the Mossberg over the Remington....the actual point of this thread...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Having the ability to easily disengage the safety is not comparable to not having the chamber loaded. Don't try to confuse the issue.

    Even if you always shoulder the shotgun with the safety disengaged, you have to disengage it at some point. Are you saying you can't think of any instances where one might want to move with the safety on to a location while having the ability to easily disengage the safety if needed? Even in combat, do you think the soldiers disengage the safety the moment they step or drive out the wire? Sitting in their vehicles, they are absolutely going to have the safety on.

    One can reach up with their loading hand and thumb the safety, sure. But disengaging the safety, in my opinion, should not be a two handed operation. I can't think of any firearm that requires the off hand to disengage the safety, especially not a firearm that is utilized in a defensive manner. And I view it as two handed because you have to hold the shotgun with one hand while a second hand manipulates the safety.

    At no point did I say I was afraid of the tang safety. It's a good and reliable safety that is mechanically better than the cross bolt safety. But saying "A" is better than "B" doesn't matter if "B" is reliable. Reliability is a binary test. It is either reliable or it isn't. If the bolt safety were not reliable, I doubt the Remington would have been selected by so many police agencies and military units (that have a choice). While the tang safety is good, it's outdated. It limits the options available to the shooter. If you believe the pistol grip has no place on a shotgun, please feel free to address the number of advantages of a pistol grip I posted in a previous post. If you agree the pistol grip has its place on a shotgun in some situations, it's unreasonable to say the tang safety is as convenient and as easy to disengage as a cross bolt safety.

    Are you implying a Remington 870 cannot shoot 3000 rounds without a failure just because they didn't submit a shotgun to the trial?
    First paragraph is a sucky attempt to diffuse my point. Don’t try to tell me what to say. I’m implying that I haven’t seen anyone prove that the Mossberg is proven to have passed the tests as described. I’ve already explained that I not only own a few 870 shotguns, but openly stated that the two guns that I included in the conversation are both proven offerings in their own right. Someone did offer a possible explanation as to why Remington threw in the towel from the get go, which I personally do not buy. I also haven’t read anywhere that the Mossberg was the sole contender, not that it would negate the published results of the testing and the US military and so many other countries and law enforcement agencies adopting the Mossberg. Just part of why I prefer the Mossberg over the Remington....the actual point of this thread...
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    First paragraph is a sucky attempt to diffuse my point. Don’t try to tell me what to say. I’m implying that I haven’t seen anyone prove that the Mossberg is proven to have passed the tests as described. I’ve already explained that I not only own a few 870 shotguns, but openly stated that the two guns that I included in the conversation are both proven offerings in their own right. Someone did offer a possible explanation as to why Remington threw in the towel from the get go, which I personally do not buy. I also haven’t read anywhere that the Mossberg was the sole contender, not that it would negate the published results of the testing and the US military and so many other countries and law enforcement agencies adopting the Mossberg. Just part of why I prefer the Mossberg over the Remington....the actual point of this thread...

    - - - Updated - - -


    First paragraph is a sucky attempt to diffuse my point. Don’t try to tell me what to say. I’m implying that I haven’t seen anyone prove that the Mossberg is proven to have passed the tests as described. I’ve already explained that I not only own a few 870 shotguns, but openly stated that the two guns that I included in the conversation are both proven offerings in their own right. Someone did offer a possible explanation as to why Remington threw in the towel from the get go, which I personally do not buy. I also haven’t read anywhere that the Mossberg was the sole contender, not that it would negate the published results of the testing and the US military and so many other countries and law enforcement agencies adopting the Mossberg. Just part of why I prefer the Mossberg over the Remington....the actual point of this thread...

    Ok...say what you want. But you try to post false equivalences, you're likely to get called out. As far as Mossberg being the only one to pass the test, that hasn't been relevant in 20 years. That specification was inactivated in 1995 and doesn't seem to have been replaced. In the meantime, military units have been able to choose various shotguns as needed. Some units picked a benelli with the designation M1014, some a remington with the designation M870, and some the mossberg with the designations M500, M590, or M590A1. Even if Remington entered but didn't pass the 3443G specs, those are 26 year old specs and that hasn't stopped the 870 from being one of the official military shotguns to have been proven in combat. Members of all branches use the 870 and the 500. They are both proven in combat. That holds true for different law enforcement agencies as well. Some use the 500, some the 870, and some use something else. They both have their pros and cons. With respect to the remington and the 3443G specs, it's fine that you don't buy that they threw in the towel. After all, if that were true, it would undermine your initial post that the durability and dependability standards were too high for them.

    But, hey...if you want to cling to an irrelevant 26 year old standard, you do you man. I'm happy to have a choice of durable and dependable combat proven shotguns to choose from.
     

    Jack

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    40   0   0
    Dec 9, 2010
    8,602
    63
    Covington
    Can we all just agree that a quality AR-15 is better than a shotgun for everything but door breaching :D
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    Having the ability to easily disengage the safety is not comparable to not having the chamber loaded. Don't try to confuse the issue.

    Even if you always shoulder the shotgun with the safety disengaged, you have to disengage it at some point. Are you saying you can't think of any instances where one might want to move with the safety on to a location while having the ability to easily disengage the safety if needed? Even in combat, do you think the soldiers disengage the safety the moment they step or drive out the wire? Sitting in their vehicles, they are absolutely going to have the safety on.

    One can reach up with their loading hand and thumb the safety, sure. But disengaging the safety, in my opinion, should not be a two handed operation. I can't think of any firearm that requires the off hand to disengage the safety, especially not a firearm that is utilized in a defensive manner. And I view it as two handed because you have to hold the shotgun with one hand while a second hand manipulates the safety.

    At no point did I say I was afraid of the tang safety. It's a good and reliable safety that is mechanically better than the cross bolt safety. But saying "A" is better than "B" doesn't matter if "B" is reliable. Reliability is a binary test. It is either reliable or it isn't. If the bolt safety were not reliable, I doubt the Remington would have been selected by so many police agencies and military units (that have a choice). While the tang safety is good, it's outdated. It limits the options available to the shooter. If you believe the pistol grip has no place on a shotgun, please feel free to address the number of advantages of a pistol grip I posted in a previous post. If you agree the pistol grip has its place on a shotgun in some situations, it's unreasonable to say the tang safety is as convenient and as easy to disengage as a cross bolt safety.

    Are you implying a Remington 870 cannot shoot 3000 rounds without a failure just because they didn't submit a shotgun to the trial?

    Ok...say what you want. But you try to post false equivalences, you're likely to get called out. As far as Mossberg being the only one to pass the test, that hasn't been relevant in 20 years. That specification was inactivated in 1995 and doesn't seem to have been replaced. In the meantime, military units have been able to choose various shotguns as needed. Some units picked a benelli with the designation M1014, some a remington with the designation M870, and some the mossberg with the designations M500, M590, or M590A1. Even if Remington entered but didn't pass the 3443G specs, those are 26 year old specs and that hasn't stopped the 870 from being one of the official military shotguns to have been proven in combat. Members of all branches use the 870 and the 500. They are both proven in combat. That holds true for different law enforcement agencies as well. Some use the 500, some the 870, and some use something else. They both have their pros and cons. With respect to the remington and the 3443G specs, it's fine that you don't buy that they threw in the towel. After all, if that were true, it would undermine your initial post that the durability and dependability standards were too high for them.

    But, hey...if you want to cling to an irrelevant 26 year old standard, you do you man. I'm happy to have a choice of durable and dependable combat proven shotguns to choose from.
    LMAO!
    I wanna reply but my stomach hurts from laughing. I’m not here for the same reasons as you, clearly. I bet you’re plenty fun at parties.
    Just try to see me as the special needs kid who randomly yells out, ‘I like Mossbergs!’


    I’m sure someone appreciates your endless argument, but I seriously doubt they simply come here for that.
    I like Mossberg pump guns. They are my favorite. While your points took up a lot of space here I find them self serving and simply your opinions. They don’t influence my opinion of anything but you. I’m not sorry if my opinions on a particular shotgun inflame you or do not conform to your beliefs. I wish you felt the same about my opinions instead of turning every thread into a pissing match mr moderator..
    After all, I wasn’t uh... directing my argument(?) directly at you. I was just addressing your pointless points with counterpoints...or something... I think.
    Last question: Having taken such a stance on the Mossberg, how can you continue to own one?
     
    Last edited:

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Can we all just agree that a quality AR-15 is better than a shotgun for everything but door breaching :D

    And for door breaching, you can get a Knight's Armament 12-gauge Masterkey, a modified Remington 870 Police Magnum.

    master_key.jpg
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Last question: Having taken such a stance on the Mossberg, how can you continue to own one?

    For the same reason I got it and the same reason I got the 870. They're dependable. I have not yet felt the need to get rid of a dependable weapon simply because its design limits its functionality. I can always find a role for it that takes into account its limitations.
     

    Magdump

    Don’t troll me bro!
    Rating - 100%
    163   0   0
    Dec 31, 2013
    9,396
    113
    Hammond, Louisiana
    For the same reason I got it and the same reason I got the 870. They're dependable. I have not yet felt the need to get rid of a dependable weapon simply because its design limits its functionality. I can always find a role for it that takes into account its limitations.
    Surprise surprise....I had gathered that you considered the Mossberg utterly useless due to the unacceptable lack of an ergonomic safety location. I don’t know how on earth I could have come to such a conclusion. My mistake. Unless you’re just posturing in an attempt to keep the sale price of yours at a premium. No worries, I’ll give you fair market value for it.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Surprise surprise....I had gathered that you considered the Mossberg utterly useless due to the unacceptable lack of an ergonomic safety location. I don’t know how on earth I could have come to such a conclusion. My mistake. Unless you’re just posturing in an attempt to keep the sale price of yours at a premium. No worries, I’ll give you fair market value for it.

    When we were overseas, my unit issues them and they worked well. I didn't personally use it, I had the M203 for a while. But I never saw it have any issues. I don't believe the 500 is utterly useless and I don't remember implying it was either. I just don't believe it rises unequaled above all others and has no flaws. And I don't put more stock in the results of a 26 year old inactive standard when both the 500 and 870 have proven themselves in real world scenarios with both the military and law enforcement.
     

    CAJUNLAWYER

    crusty old bastard
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Aug 22, 2010
    129
    16
    Iberia Parish
    I don’t see what any of this has to do with me saying you were incorrect when you said milspec doesn’t mean anything. It’s why I don’t think you’re a pedant, because you’re avoiding that detail so much. I also don’t think you’re a didactic person, to teach one needs to know. You’re a guy who was wrong on the internet, thats all. Not a big deal, just own it and move on.

    By the way, kudos for using pedantic and didactic here, you’ve proven yourself to be quite the sesquipedalianist. :thumbsup:

    NOW we're having fun!!!!!!!!! :D:D:D
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,221
    Messages
    1,546,084
    Members
    29,168
    Latest member
    Lyle.lejeune2017
    Top Bottom