Talk:Mossberg 500

Capacity

Well, I report what was said on some wikipages ([1] and [fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuter:Mossberg_500])

According to french wiki', the magazine capacities of Mossbergs are : Mossberg 500 : 7 shots Mossberg 590 : 9 shots (12-gauge / 18,5x70mm) or 8 shots (12-gauge Magnum / 18,5x76mm), 7 shots or less for shortened variants. Is it always 5 shots for shortened variants of 500 and 590 ? And has the Mossberg 500 ATP6 a 5-shot magazine + one in chamber, and the ATP8 a 7-shot + one in chamber ?

For french use of Mossbergs : Mossberg 500 is in limited numbers in service in french army (Special Forces, units in French Guiana). The GSPR (Groupe de Sécurité de la Présidence de la République) uses Mossberg 500 Cruiser. The Maverick M88 was sold at low prices in France in 1980s and 1990s, so french Armée de l'Air (Air Force) uses M88 for guardianship of his air bases. Lot of french money conveyance and guardianship companies also use M88.

Well, it is what french wiki says. But I'm not sure of all this. About GSPR, see 1, there are photographs of GSPR weapons, including two shotguns. I suppose these are a Benelli M3T and a short Mossberg 590 (and not a "Mossberg 870" as written in the page, probably a mistake with Remington 870.) because of the heat shield and the design of the trigger guard. About the GSPR, there is also a website with an english version ([gspr.free.fr/anglais/index2.htm]) but it is very little. And a photograph (on the forum [forum.gign.org]) shows that the GIGN tested a Model 500 ATP6 "Bullpup 12".

Some french wikipedists are surprised by "Mossberg claims that the Model 500 is the only shotgun to pass the US Army's Mil-Spec 3443E test, "a brutal and unforgiving torture test with 3,000 rounds of full power 12 gauge buckshot". ". According to them, lot of shotguns are better than the Mossberg. Is it possible that the Mil-Spec 3443E also precise a maximum price, who forbid better shotguns to pass the tests ? Rob1bureau 20:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob1bureau 18:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

"Better" in what way? Is a Purdy double better than a Mossberg 500? Many people think so, to the tune of paying tens of thousands of dollars for one. Will it pass the 3443 spec? Nope, it fails the first requirement, that it be a pump shotgun. The 3443 specs do not specify a price, they do specify reliabilty, safety, accessory (bayonet), finish, durability and materials requirements. In fact, the model 500 does NOT pass the 3443G spec, which requires a metal trigger guard (3443E only required a certain impact strength). The 590 does have a metal trigger guard, and that is why it is what the military is currently purchasing.

Now there is one bit of information that we're lacking, and that is how many, if any, other manufacturers submitted shotguns to be tested against the 3443 requirements? If Remington and Winchester didn't submit samples, then it's possible that they are fully capable of passing the test. However, since Remington and Winchester pumps are still in use by the military (leftovers from before the 3343 requirements document) then it seems odd that the manufacturers would not sumbit samples. As for price, according to http://www.asafm.army.mil/budget/fybm/FY07/pforms/wtcv.pdf page 278-279, the military is paying US$316.24 each for the 14,818 model 590s they ordered in 2005; you can certainly buy an 870 Wingmaster for less than that, or a Whichester 1200, or a Benelli Nova, so it looks like price isn't the only issue here. It may be that only Mossberg considers the US$4.6 million contract worth the effort. scot 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Tang safety?

This article requires mention of the Mossberg's tang safety, which is probably the most attractive feature of this defense favorite. RPellessier | Talk 17:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Or maybe overdone, I also included how to field strip it :) scot 18:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You de man! RPellessier | Talk 19:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hammerless?

First off, good article overall. However, it's not a hammerless shotgun as stated. The hammer is indeed internal, located on the rear of the trigger group, but it is definitely a hammer. Hammerless firearms are striker fired - the firing pin/striker is spring loaded. Think Glock.

Not in the context of shotguns; hammerless has meant internal hammers since the early "hammerless" doubles. This is to differentiate it from the exposed hammer designs such as the Winchester 1897. See for example the Cowboy Action Shooting rules, which require exposed hammers. I'm not aware of any striker fired shotguns--that's not to say that none exist, but it is certainly not at all common.

Can you document using other than CAS rules? CAS rules also prohibit DA revolvers, which were not uncommon in the Old West (think Starr cap'n'ball, and the Colt Thunderer and Lightening revolvers). I cannot view this as definitive. After doing some reading of books from the '40s and '50s, the original term was "internal hammer." "Hammerless" is as much a misnomer as is calling a detachable magazine a "clip." It's simply... not. FYI, I do believe there are now some striker fired doubles on the market, but I cannot name them without a thorough search as they're fairly new. Perhaps a phrase such as "internal hammer, more commonly but erronously known as "hammerless," would be in order. What do you think? J.S.

There is also a problem which seems unique to the Mossy 500, and it can be very dangerous. If the trigger group gets too dirty, it will fail to fire, feeling as if the safety is on. If you set it aside and wait for a minute, it will free itself and you will be able to then fire it. I've also had them where I yanked on the trigger repeatedly to make it go off while pointing in a safe direction.

The fix for this is simple: Take the trigger group, spray it with CLP or other cleaner which is polymer safe (at least with limited exposure), rinse it with very hot tap water, and blow it out with compressed air until dry. Lightly oil everything when you're sure it's dry. I wouldn't recommend taking the trigger group apart; it's hard to get back together without a third hand.

Actually it's pretty easy as these things go. For the average person? J.S. Now the Grendel P-10, that was a real pain to get back together, what with the watch-type hammer spring and the internal magazine, plus a couple of other springs, all needing to be under compression simultaneously as the subframe with back into the grip assembly. That operation drew blood every attempt until I got it right.

Perhaps a "common maladies" section is in order?

But can you document this as a "common malady"? What you describe sounds like the hammer spring and strut are so gunked up that the hammer is hanging in the fully compressed state, rather than moving forward slightly to engage the sear. This is a problem that could occur with ANY coil spring powered hammer. Given the ease of disassembling the 500, and the amount of dirt you'd need to have there to gum up the hammer spring, I'd say that it's gone beyond mere "dirty" and well into negligence. Keep in mind that the 500 is documented as having passed the Mil-Spec 3443x test (the exact value of "x" depending on model; the current "G" requirement calls for a metal trigger guard and excludes all but the 590 series; earlier versions did not and could be passed by a 500). That test calls for a rather intense firing session with minimal cleaning, with a sub-percent failure rate.

What do you all think?

Josh <><

I think you're going to have a hard time with this one, unless you can document but the failure of the 500 AND the lack of similar failures in other shotguns. Otherwise what you're doing is equivalent to saying "If I beat it with a sledgehammer, it breaks", which implies that this is unusual and that other models won't break when beaten with a sledgehammer... scot 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Break for Readability

I can document this off of conversations on firearms boards. Other people have mentioned this same problem.

I discovered it when it occured with mine. I had just gotten it and discovered it had this malady. It did NOT look overly dirty, just fired. I asked around on the gunboards http://handgunsandammo.proboards36.com/index.cgi (I built that one for a Mr. Stephen A. Camp, so I likely would not admit it as evidence), http://shootertalk.com/ , http://www.shootersville.net/ , and a few other ones specializing in gunsmithing. The answer came from a work associate of that time who had the same problem. I wasn't into gunsmithing then as I am now. It was a huge learning experience for me and one I try to pass along to everyone.

Thoughts on using gun boards as documentation?

Josh <>

popular forums (shotgun section):

http://thefiringline.com/forums/

http://www.thehighroad.org//

Current 500 issues/debate:

1) full take down, especially reassembly, for some ppl - need for instruction DVD in the box?

2) current parts/fit quality:

  a) Mav 88 quality > 500 quality? 
  b) it action's loose?
  c) years of grumblings its aluminum receiver is weak (doen't have to be stronger - the barrel is the breech). ANY documented field-failures?
  d) half-century holdover from mossy's old, quirky-designs era, e.g. the .22mag 640 chuckster, that have gone away?

3) 500 vs. NEF "Hawk" sino-Pardner 870 copy: is the NEF smoother?, just better?

4) misfeeds (shell drops out instead of chambering, failure to eject, etc): barrel bolt loosened, or bad reassembly from field strip, not evident on dry cycling.

5) still come slathered with goop from the factory lol

6) price: $250 for field grade with 1 barrel. sheesh.

military and police bbl length? Are these simply not just short barreled shotguns available to anyone who is legally entitled? If so, referring to them specifically as military and police rather than NFA SBS is misleading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.203.219 (talk • contribs)

So, no, forums aren't reliable sources. This article is about the Mossberg 500 which has been made for what, 50 years, and doesn't necessarily reflect on the current status quo & price. On military & law enforcement models, those are the names given by Mossberg. Comparison to Rem 870 has no place here. Failure to reassemble is the user's failure, not Mossbergs. I've never had any of the listed problems.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Was this article meant to cover 500's history, or its current issues? Based on Wikipedia's methodology, both. If neccessary, as separate pages for history and for current issues with comparisons to other brands. The potential buyer might not be interested in past glories that've lingered past their design epoch. There are some gunsmith-dedicated forums that can deal with the specific trigger group issue. Google time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.203.219 (talk • contribs)

I would recommend something other than blogs and forums because they are not reliable sources. Competitors can manipulate such sites for their business interests and have been known to do so. You might try looking for reviews in publications to back your points. Do you own a Model 500? (Please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Number 500

Harold Murtz in Gun Digest Treasury (DBI Books, 1994), p.193-4, says the 500 was number-two selling pump shotgun in U.S. history, after the Rem870. Trekphiler 01:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Accessories

Would it be possible to take the trigger group from the 590A1 and put it in a 500, replacing the plastic(polymer) tigger group? 12.177.80.3 (talk) 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe; the trigger group is a "restricted" part according to Mossberg's owner's manual, so you'd have to see if the factory would fit the part for you, or track down a used part from Numerich or the like. In fact, a quick look at Numerich shows them listing the same part number for the 500 and 590. Of course, the plain model 500 is still in service with the military, as the 2004 photo from Iraq shows (check the magazine cap). scot (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The only "restriction" is Mossberg's; the receiver is the only thing with a serial number on it, and as such it is the "firearm" in U.S. law; anything else can be swapped out. The two trigger groups are identical between the 500 and 590; the ONLY difference is the mag tube's endcap. So, if you can buy a 590A1 trigger group, it should just drop in. Liko81 (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Another question: the comparison of the 500 and 590A1 is that, due to the 590A1's heavy barrel, the factory heat shield cannot be fitted. I quote:

"Unlike Model 500 and 590 shotguns (with the exception of ghost-ring sight 590 models), Model 590A1 shotguns cannot be easily fitted with the factory heat shield, due to the heavy barrel. A heat shield and bayonet lug are required for military 3443G Type I riot shotguns,[2] and some 590A1s are so equipped, but it is not clear if the 590A1 heat shields have ever been offered for sale outside of the military market."

I currently own a 500 special-purpose that has the heavy barrel (good thing too; it's got a lil' kick with 00 Buck). This same barrel, with the 590 magazine retainer ring instead of the 500, is the 590A1's barrel. My shotgun has a heat shield. It is thus logical to assume that if you can get a 590A1, any heat shield that will fit a 20" heavy barrel will work, and those heat shields are indeed available, so the last clause of the above quote seems erroneous.Liko81 (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is to find a source that offers the heat shield specifically for the 590A1; the version offered by Mossberg version specifically says "thin wall barrels". They may be, or have been, available, but I can't prove that without a source that says that. If you're thinking of any 50XXX models, like the catalog number 50660, that's a 590, NOT a 590A1, and has the thin wall barrel; the only model 590 that lists as having the heavy wall barrel is the 51663 model. (Annoyingly, Mossberg uses pictures of the SAME GUN for the 50663 and 51663, which should differ only in barrel thickness and trigger group material, but you can tell they're the same by the scratches in the finish of the magazine tube.) See here for the Mossberg specs on the current models. I have seen mentions of the 51660, which sounds like what you have, but they all point to a dead law enforcement catalog URL, I can't find the LE catalog on Mossberg's website. Granted, it's not an NFA gun like the 14" models, so you can legally buy it if you can find someone to sell it to you, but it is technically not on the civilian market if it's only offered in the LE catalog. scot (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

It says in this article that "Other varieties of pump shotgun previously used by the military...have been phased out as of 2005." However, the Remington 870 article says the 870 "is also commonly used by U.S. police and the U.S. military." So what is it? 69.234.138.13 (talk) 05:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The Mossberg article is in error. The Remington 870 is still in use in the US Air Force, US Navy, and USMC. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Title

The title of this article should probably be changed to "Mossberg Persuader" since it's not only about the 500, but about all the persuader models (500, 590 and 590A1). We can make "Mossberg 500" and the names of all the other Persuader models redirect here.

What say y'all? Hoplophile (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Persuader name is a lot newer than the 500 so it would be inaccurate.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Development History

I think that some comments about the timeline of the development of the 500 would be interesting. For example, was it always made with the polymer trigger assembly and safety? If not then when was it first so made? When was the 590A1 first made? When was the model 500 used by the military and which models were used? How many have been made? The Remington 870 recently passed 10 million. How does the Mossberg compare? I am sure that there are many other similar questions. Alexselkirk1704 (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation 11 or "Department of the Army Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Budget Estimates" is a dead link. Furthermore, when a legitimate link is viewed, the claim the citation backs is false.

I have checked both the fy 2007 and 2005 budgets. At no point is a mossberg purchase, shotgun purchase, or the sum of $316 dollars ever mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.165.165.239 (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Mossberg 500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mossberg.com/manuals/LineLauncher.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.clipsnstuff.com/shotgun-ati.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724160956/http://www.collectie.legermuseum.nl/strategion/strategion/i007439.html to http://www.collectie.legermuseum.nl/strategion/strategion/i007439.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_6_93/ai_n16346115
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125065544/http://maverickarms.com/ to http://www.maverickarms.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3197/is_n3_v37/ai_12462187
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090108143033/http://www.gunwebsites.com/Articles.php?action=detail&g=content1208771421 to http://www.gunwebsites.com/Articles.php?action=detail&g=content1208771421
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060324133614/http://www.nazarian.no/wep.asp?id=314&group_id=2&country_id=50&lang=0&p=8 to http://www.nazarian.no/wep.asp?id=314&group_id=2&country_id=50&lang=0&p=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mossberg 500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080909063659/http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=3 to http://www.mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=3
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.allenslaw.com/at.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mossberg 500. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913170444/http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh03-e.htm to http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh03-e.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160907224804/http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/January/Pages/Army,MarineCorpsSucceedinRapidlyFieldingSpecializedIndividualWeapons.aspx to http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/January/Pages/Army,MarineCorpsSucceedinRapidlyFieldingSpecializedIndividualWeapons.aspx/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160827115818/http://www.mar.mil.br/cmatfn/armamentos/armamentos_leves.htm to https://www.mar.mil.br/cmatfn/armamentos/armamentos_leves.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing for 16 gauge

I've been looking for sourcing to support the model's availability in 16 gauge. The previous citation was removed as being a deprecated source though it was later found to fail V. Here are some sources that confirm the 16 gauge was offered. It would be great if we could establish introduction and discontinue dates.

Field and Stream, 1971 for the Mossberg 500, it shows the 16 gauge as an option [[2]].

This source says the 16 gauge was introduced in 1963 but doesn't say when it was discontinued. [[3]].

Here is a buyers guide listing 16 gauge models. [[4]]

I think this is sufficient to prove the model existed and that it was discontinued. Springee (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Mossberg 835

Seeing as how the 835 is basically just a 500 stretched out to fit 3 1/2in shells, isn't some mention of it relevant to this page? Many of the external accessories are compatible with both, and mechanically they are identical in function and layout, although I doubt most of the parts are interchangeable (I have never compared a 500 and 835 bolt side by side). Maybe the trigger group and magazine parts. Buttstocks are interchangeable, although I've had fitment issues with fore ends, due to the longer length of the thick chamber segment of the barrel on the 835, even on products sold as fitting "500, 590 and 835 Model" firearms. In any case there is an obvious direct relationship between the two models.

70.20.34.99 (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)