Remington vs Mossberg Box-fed Shotguns

[Chickenhawks]

I have been thinking about picking one up. I was skeptical of the concept, but I have to say Remington's video on the shotgun did a great job of making me want one. It's good to hear some positive feedback on it.

Buried within my wry humour, deep sarcasm, blatant disdain for tacticool mall ninjas and subtle nods to Sun Tzu, I was hoping there is some semblance of positive feedback. I too was sceptical at first, but have come to appreciate the advantages of the DM for certain applications. It's certainly not for everyone or every application, and it is somewhat ironic that the biggest advantages of the box magazine 870 are that it addresses the deficiencies in quality control of the current lineup of 870 Express and 870 Police shotguns.

For example, the chamber is smoother than anything out of Remington in years and I have tested it with some of the cheapest white box and third-world shells on the market and never had to mortar it on the ground to extract a fired shell - unlike EVERY other tacticool, Express, Marine Magnum or Police 870 made in the last 20 years. The finish is almost indiscernible from an 870 Police with the parkerized finish (and I am a perfectionist) and have never had a single failure to feed, fire, extract or eject. Not one. And all I did was open the box, wipe the inside of the bore, load it up and fire a case of shells.(I can't even say that for my M4, the world's best combat shotgun ever.)

[Chickenhawks]

Yes, it's not for everyone. So, who's especially going to hate the 870 DM?

Simple. Chris Costa fanboys with the tacticool sunglasses and cool guy gear who charge big dollars for a four-day shotgun course. The hundreds of companies who make various shellholders that mall ninjas like to dangle all over their shotguns like it's some tactical Christmas tree.

One and a half days of shotgun training on how to reload strong hand, weak hand, under the receiver, over the receiver and standing on your head in a rice paddy ... is now distilled down to ten seconds of "tug out the old magazine/slam in a new one" and all those expensive shell holders that only get in the way in a real-life encounter can now be replaced by a $30 spare magazine and the back pocket of your jeans.

Three gunners will no longer be able to trace their path backwards from the finish to the start line by the trail of live shells accidentally dropped from their shell holders. We will no longer have to advise new owners how to polish the chamber of their brand-new 870. We will now be forced to debate tactics, techniques and television shows instead of shell holders and chamber polishing tools. Rats. I am going to miss you all.

[26 Inf]

So, who's especially going to hate the 870 DM?

Simple. Chris Costa fanboys with the tacticool sunglasses and cool guy gear who charge big dollars for a four-day shotgun course. The hundreds of companies who make various shellholders that mall ninjas like to dangle all over their shotguns like it's some tactical Christmas tree.

Perceptive, yes, you are.

Three gunners will no longer be able to trace their path backwards from the finish to the start line by the trail of live shells accidentally dropped from their shell holders. We will no longer have to advise new owners how to polish the chamber of their brand-new 870. We will now be forced to debate tactics, techniques and television shows instead of shell holders and chamber polishing tools. Rats. I am going to miss you all.

Mmmm, the Remforce is strong with this one.

You mention three-gun, have the rules changed to allow magazine fed shotguns in practical tactical?

[Moose-Knuckle]

If I was into boxed magazine fed shotguns I'd opt for a Saiga or Vepr with some of those donkey penis mags.

A mag fed pump-action, meh . . .

[Chickenhawks]

To each his own and I would never criticize another person's choice of shotgun. Those third-world shotguns are great because they are cheap, look cool and there are a million internet forums devoted to how to fix them so they work right.

I can't use them because an extra 4 pounds of shotgun out on the tundra translates into 40 pounds by the end of the day. Plus, I need something that is simple, fast into action, doesn't need an internet forum to fix deficiencies in the design (I very stupidly once had a Walther P22 for that) and one can switch from slugs to bangers to buckshot in seconds. My philosophy has always been that the more you might need a shotgun in a hurry to save your life, the less stuff it should have hanging off it.

I, like almost everyone else in here has a certain amount of firearms for the fun factor and because they look cool and can be accessorized like they are a Lego set for adults. But my shotguns are not for the looks.

I unpack them, clean the bore, shoot a case of shells out of them, polish the chamber and action bars, add a Hogue stock and forend and bond an XS Big Dot over the front bead and put them to work. That's about it.
.
Bear Safety shotguns.jpg

I will always remember one of the lessons from my own mentor Rob Leatham. He was talking about competition pistols but the lessons apply to shotguns too. He used to say, "Don't worry about the person with three shiny new pistols and all the aftermarket parts; worry about the guy with one gun and all the bluing worn off from years of drawing from a holster."

Which, in answer to a previous question, is exactly why I no longer compete and don't shoot 3-gun. Three-gun has become a shotgun reloading contest, and quite frankly, if I can't solve a real deadly threat problem with four to six rounds, I deserve to get eaten.

[Moose-Knuckle]

To each his own and I would never criticize another person's choice of shotgun.

And yet you do . . .


Post #19 on page one of this very thread:

The Mossberg on the other hand is bulky, clunky and, well ... just plain fugly. Life is too short to own ugly shotguns.

[Chickenhawks]

LOL! Of course I do. That's the beauty of internet forums. Everyone can offer their opinion.

Besides, have you SEEN the Mossberg 590M? It IS ugly! It looks like someone glued a model of the Empire State Building to the bottom of a shotgun.

Life is too short to own ugly guns, and at my advanced age in life, life is too short, period.

On the other hand, another one of my mentors was an old Chief Warrant Officer who used to have a saying that went, "Beware the old man in a young person's war." I guess that's me. Old, crusty and willing to argue anything until all you kids get off my lawn.

[26 Inf]

In your pics is the top stock a Hogue?

I ask because on the shorter stock in the middle the recoil pad angle is marked different.

The top one seems to be designed to get the shotgun higher into the shoulder, whereas the middle one seemingly would entice the shooter to bury it low.

If both are Hogues, do you know why?

[Chickenhawks]

You are correct. Both are Hogue.

Both shotguns are 870 Marine Magnums, set up identical. Aside from the finish (black Trynite on the Marine Magnum XCS at the top and electroless nickel in the middle) the middle one has a Hogue short LOP stock and the top one has a regular length-of-pull stock.

The reason for the Hogue stock and forend is simple. The overmold rubber gives me 100% weatherpoof shotguns that don't slip in the cold or wet because training doesn't stop when it's raining.

One is set up with the shorter stock because about 40% of my students are smaller-statured, and many of them have never fired a firearm, let alone a shotgun, in their lives. It is important to match the stock length to their arm length for the initial training.

Both stocks get the butt into the shoulder pocket the same but the criteria is not how deep it is in the pocket. It is always to get it up high enough that the only thing visible is the bead and the pedestal base. No barrel should appear when shouldered correctly. (The concept of "aiming" a shotgun is vitally important to my students when their target is 1100 pounds, moving 40 MPH and they have about 1.5 seconds to get two slugs direct to center-mass.)

And why the Remington 870? Equally as simple. Both Marine Magnum training shotguns have upwards of 15,000 rounds through them. I have replaced three firing pin springs, one ejector spring and one action bar tube in 20 years.

And, I jest. I like my Mossberg 590A1 with the 14-inch barrel. I even carry it in bear country sometimes. But I won't train with it because it is too clunky, too rough and too many moving parts for my taste. Trust me; when the training gets this intense, I need to keep things dead simple.

[26 Inf]

Both stocks get the butt into the shoulder pocket the same but the criteria is not how deep it is in the pocket. It is always to get it up high enough that the only thing visible is the bead and the pedestal base. No barrel should appear when shouldered correctly. (The concept of "aiming" a shotgun is vitally important to my students when their target is 1100 pounds, moving 40 MPH and they have about 1.5 seconds to get two slugs direct to center-mass.)

Yes, indeed, too few people realize how to properly mount the shotgun, the angle in as the stock goes toward the toe on the top stock seemed to me that it would intuitively help the shooter keep the head erect and get it mounted high enough that the bead was floating on what I call the rear sight plane of the receiver.

Looking at you pictues, I'd be willing to bet if you measured the recoil pads from toe to heel, you would find the middle stock's recoil pad 1/2 inch shorter.

That doesn't sound like much, but a lot of shooters have a hard time trusting that the stock isn't going to rip the top of their shoulder off with that little recoil pad contacting the shoulder.

Surprisingly, not as much resistance to mounting properly with that extra little bit of recoil pad there. I prefer the Choate stocks for this reason.

Maybe you aren't as nutso about 'head erect, up to the cheek, back to the shoulder' as I am during the initial phase of training, but I think we are pretty much on the same page.